post disaster recovery needs assessment and methodologies

Review of Post Disaster Recovery Needs Assessment and Methodologies

November 2007

United Nations Development Programme

for Recovery Methodology and Tool Kit (PDNA)

Experiences from Asia and Latin America

Christina Bollin and Shivani Khanna

Acknowledgements

The review was authored by Christina Bollin and Shivani Khanna and is the product of the Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery (BCPR). Valuable inputs to the design of the PDNA framework has been provided by the Economic Commission for Latin-America (ECLAC).

Overall guidance was provided by Gita Meier-Ewert, layout by Gelise McCullough.

UNDP would like to thank all those who offered their time and insights for this review. A full list of people consulted can be found in Annex I.

The report is an independent publication commissioned by UNDP. The analysis and recommendations of this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Development Programme, its Executive Board or its member states.

Contacts:

For questions or further information please contact Ola Almgren, [email protected]

(Cover Photo/ Tanvir Ahmed/

IRIN )

Contents

List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................3

Executive Summary .....................................................................................................5

Introduction ...................................................................................................................10

1.1 Background .................................................................................................. 101.2 The Post Disaster Recovery Needs Assessment Review Initiative 11

2 Review of Post Disaster Recovery Needs Assessment Methodologies .14

2.1 Overview of Recovery Needs Assessment Methodologies .......... 142.2 Recovery Assessment Trends, Lessons and Gaps ............................. 66

3 Conclusion and Recommendations for PDNA ..........................................81

3.1 Design and Development ....................................................................... 813.2 Buy-in, Adaptation and Capacity Building ......................................... 87

References ......................................................................................................................89

Annexes ............................................................................................................................92

Annex 1: List of interviewees ............................................................................. 92Annex 2: Information Sheet .............................................................................. 95Annex 3: Inquiry points Checklist ..................................................................... 97Annex 4: Table of Needs Assessment Methodologies ................................ 101

Review of Post Disaster Recovery Needs Assessment Methodologies 3

List of Acronyms

ADB Asian Development Bank

CCFSC Central Committee for Floods and Storm Control

CONRED Coordinadora Nacional para la Reducción de Desastres (Guatemala)

NCDR National Council for Disaster Reduction

CWGER Cluster Working Group on Early Recovery

DANA Damage and needs assessment

DER Disaster Emergency Response

DLA Damage and Loss Assessments

DNA Damage and Needs Assessment

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction

ECBG Emergency Capacity Building Group

ECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean

EDAN Evaluación de Daños y Análisis de Necesidades

DANA Damage Assessment and Needs Analysis

FACT Field Assessment and Coordination Team (of the IFRC)

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

GFDRR Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (World Bank)

HIC Humanitarian Information Centre (UN OCHA)

IASC Inter-agency Standing Committee (UN)

ER Early Recovery

IFI International Financial Institutions

IRP International Recovery Platform

IFRC International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

ILO International Labour Organization

INEE Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies

INGO International non-governmental organization

GSO General Statistic Office

GoB Government of Bangladesh

GoV Government of Vietnam

LRRD Linking relief, rehabilitation and development

MAGA Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Alimentación Guatemala

MDG Millennium Development Goals

MRA Multi-sectoral rapid assessment

NGO Non-governmental organization

4 International Recovery Platform - Post Disaster Recovery Needs Assessment Methodology and Toolkit (PDNA)

INGO International Non-government organization

OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN)

OFDA Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance

OPS Organización Panamericana de la Salud

PAHO Pan-American Health Organisation

PHAST Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation

PROREC Programa de reducción de riesgos en el proceso de reconstrucción del hábitat comunitario (UNDP Guatemala)

PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (World Bank)

RENA Rapid Emergency Needs Assessment

RAT Recovery Assessment Team

RCS Red Cross Societies

RRR Relief Reconstruction and rehabilitation

SEGEPLAN Secretaría General de Planificación y Programación de la Presidencia - Secretariat of Planning and Programming of the Presidency

TOR Terms of Reference

TOT Training of Trainers

TEC Tsunami Evaluation Coalition

UNDAC United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination team

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNETT United Nations Emergency Technical Team

UNFPA United Nations Population Fund

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

VNRC Vietnam National Red Cross

WB World Bank

WFP World Food Programme


Executive Summary

A range of stakeholders are engaged in post-disaster recovery and reconstruction operations. Their interventions are guided by various needs assessment exercises undertaken by individual and or multiple agencies as a part of emergency an reconstruction assessments or recovery focused assessments. The methodology, time line, processes and systems for such recovery needs assessments vary across stakeholders. Such variations in methods and related assessment outputs, challenges comparability across assessments and, often presents conflicting images of recovery needs. These conflicts lead to coordination challenges, both within and across recovery agencies, with recovery donors and with other humanitarian and development actors. In this light, both the International Recovery Platform (IRP) and the IASC Cluster Working Group on Early Recovery (CWGER) have identified the need for developing a set of Post Disaster Recovery Needs Assessment (PDNA) framework, including a methodology, set of guidelines and a toolkit in their work plans.

The PDNA framework is intended to help coordinate recovery efforts across different sectors and with a risk reduction focus. In this background, the PDNA project was developed in 2005. It is led by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in its capacity as the cluster lead for Early Recovery and as a part of the IRP and the CWGER. An agreement has been entered into with the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLAC) to help design the PDNA framework, given the generalized perception that the disaster damage and loss assessment methodology developed by ECLAC is increasingly recognized as the standard for reconstruction processes at the national level.

The primary purpose of the PDNA framework will be to provide all actors in a recovery process – including national and local authorities, international agencies, donors and local communities – with a multi-sectoral, technical overview of the damage and loss patterns and the principal recovery needs and priorities to be addressed to help with reconstruction, sustainable development and post-disaster risk reduction. In the run up to developing the PDNA framework, UNDP and ECLAC have commissioned this review of existing and emerging recovery needs assessment methodologies and tools at the international and local levels. The review includes methodologies used by different stakeholders (governments, UN agencies, INGOs, NGOs etc.), especially during recent disasters in Asia and Latin America. This review helps map existing and emerging recovery needs assessment methodologies and analyse experiences, lessons, gaps and trends related to their use and development.

The review focuses on recovery ‘needs’ assessments as different from, but linked to recovery ‘damage and loss’ assessments. It covers the methodologies used by different actors including the national governments, UN agencies, IFIs (like the World Bank), regional banks (like the ADB, IADB etc), INGOs, local NGOs and other related actors in Asia and Latin America. It specifically reviews the methodologies and tools used during rapid onset disasters like earthquakes, floods, hurricanes and tsunamis. This review is also linked to two additional and supportive reviews on one, Damage and Loss Data and Information Management and two, Gender Dimensions of Recovery Assessments.

The methodology for this review includes desk reviews, semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions with stakeholders at the global, regional and national level. The interviewees were either involved in developing methodologies or tools, implementing them or using the


findings of assessments for recovery planning. Altogether 25 methodologies or tools have been analysed. Lessons on the nature, scope and use of these have been drawn from recent disasters in Asia and Latin America.

A review of past methodologies for needs assessments reveals that, while there are many methods to assess emergency needs and some to assess reconstruction and development needs, there are very few that clearly focus on ‘recovery’ needs, both early and long term. This is primarily a reflection of the nature of post disaster activities that humanitarian and development actors support. Historically data from emergency needs assessments has been used in conjunction with a ‘sense of recovery needs’ to identify the transitional and early recovery needs of affected communities. Nevertheless, more recently, many organizations and governments are developing assessment methods that help consciously identify recovery needs. This is because of the overarching lessons that recovery activities are the key to help communities move from the emergency mode towards sustainable reconstruction, risk reduction and development.

This report includes a review of ‘recovery focussed methodologies and tools’ (subsection 2.1.1) and ‘recovery relevant’ (subsection 2.1.2). The recovery focussed methodologies cover the UNDP Recovery Guidelines, and multi-sectoral tools developed by other agencies like FAO, ILO and IFRC. It also analyses recovery assessment methodologies being developed by the UN system and national governments in Bangladesh, Vietnam and Pakistan. The ‘recovery relevant section’ captures ten needs assessment methodologies, frameworks and tools that were primarily designed for emergency or reconstruction needs, but also factor data variables for assessing recovery needs. This includes multi-stakeholder analysis and assessment tools like the OCHA’s Needs Analysis Framework (NAF) guidelines and the REDLAC Rapid Assessment Methodology for Humanitarian Assistance which can both provide highly relevant lessons to the PDNA initiative. Another significant methodology is the one developed by ECLAC for estimating the socio-economic and environmental impact of disasters (2003). Its comprehensive design, multi-stakeholder experiences and buy-in by national governments and donor organizations offer many lessons for PDNA. Other methodologies include the UNICEF’s Multi-sectoral Rapid Assessment (MRA) methodology (2006), IFRC’s Guidelines for Emergency Assessment (October 2005), TISS Community based disaster loss and needs assessment (2005), AIDMI’s Community Damage Assessment and Demand Analysis methodology (2005), ADPC’s Damage Assessment and Needs Analysis Methodology (2000), USAID/OFDA Evaluation of damages and analysis of needs/ Evaluación de daños y análisis de necesidades, EDAN (1995 onwards) and People’s Consultations on Post tsunami Relief, Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Sri Lanka (2005). All the recovery focussed and recovery relevant methodologies are also captured in a tabular form for quick review in Annex 4.

In addition to these multi-sectoral needs assessment methodologies, a broad range of sector specific needs assessment tools have and are being developed in the sectors of health, food security, education and environment. These include the WFP’s Emergency Food Security Assessment (2005); the Global Health Cluster Rapid Health Assessment (2007); Guidelines for HIV/AIDS Interventions in Emergency Settings; Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies; Chronic Crises or Early Reconstruction (2004/2006); and Post-disaster environmental needs assessment practical guide (2007). Some of these methods are briefly analysed (subsection 2.1.3) to inform the development of the PDNA framework.


Finally, recent recovery initiatives at the international and national level, which could provide pilot and partnership opportunities for the PDNA are identified (subsection 2.1.4). These include, IFRC/ProVention Consortium’s Strengthening the Social Analysis Component in Rapid Impact and Vulnerability Assessment (2007); ECBG’s the Good Enough Guide - Impact measurement and accountability in emergencies (2007); ILO and UNDP’s Pre-disaster Recovery Preparedness Initiative (2007) and the World Bank’s Recovery Capacity Building Initiative (2007).

These initiatives will help build an enabling environment for recovery preparedness, including strengthening social dimensions of post-disaster assessments, pre-disaster capacity building for recovery and pre-disaster recovery preparedness. These initiatives if partnered with can also help with contextualizing and institutionalising the PDNA process at the national level.

As a consequence of various large and small scale disasters in the last few decades, both in Asia and Latin America, emergency response as well as disaster risk management capacities and instruments have been developed and strengthened.1 Recovery needs have been partially included in post-disaster assessments. The UN’s cluster approach has promoted development of recovery focused needs assessments at the national and international level. At the regional level initiatives like the Tsunami Evaluation Coalition (TEC) in Asia has analysed the scope and utility of needs assessments. In Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean OCHA and UNDP have initiated capacity building initiatives on recovery for staff and national governments in the context of pre-disaster preparedness. Thus there are various complementary recovery focused activities being developed by different actors at different levels that can contribute to the development and institutionalization of the PDNA.

To conclude, needs assessments have multiple utilities, from resource mobilisation to multi-stakeholder coordination, recovery planning and monitoring. In a disaster time line these assessments are sandwiched between emergency and reconstruction assessment, which have fairly recognised and well established methodologies. The first ones in the humanitarian sector and the reconstruction one increasingly based on ECLAC’s multisectoral interinstitutional approach, at the national level. More due to a renewed appreciation of recovery in facilitating the transition from relief to rehabilitation, and the recent humanitarian reform and cluster approach to humanitarian action. There has been a renewed interest in conducting recovery assessments at the national level and designing recovery focused and relevant methodologies at the national and international level. However in the midst of these developments and lessons emerging from their use a gap remains. A gap in coordinating assessments of different recovery actors; analyzing findings of different assessments in identifying agreeable recovery needs; identifying cross-cutting needs related to gender, governance, recovery capacity, information management and communication; analyzing priority recovery needs of the affected and designing and adapting recovery efforts timely. This PDNA framework intends to fill that gap and promote synergies with other recovery preparedness activities of humanitarian actors.

With this in mind, the review helped generate the following recommendations related to the design and development, buy-in, adaptation and capacity building for the PDNA framework:

The PDNA should be packaged as a •• framework bringing together the different sectoral assessments and agency specific methods that are currently being developed or used. It should promote complementary use of general or multi-sectoral methodologies with

1 In other regions of the world given the nature of disasters (slow developing events such as drought, or prevalent conflicts) have been higher in the agenda.


sector specific instruments in order to produce a comprehensive analysis of needs.

PDNA represents an •• approach to be applied during different agency and inter-agency assessments rather than an additional and specific methodology. The PDNA framework should therefore aspire towards raising awareness and generating dialogue for coordination among recovery stakeholders.

It is envisaged as a •• dynamic framework that is a part of the assessment continuum (from emergency to reconstruction) and that guides the process for recovery assessments at different levels.

To operationalise the PDNA the following tools are considered: ••

Guidelines for composite analysis of different recovery needs assessments (based on •�deliverables of phase I).

Format for conducting and reporting Rapid Recovery Needs Assessments (RRNA) at •�the local level, to be developed as part of phase II. This can be used in areas where there are gaps in assessments and or by stakeholders who do not have existing tools for multi-sectoral recovery assessment.

Checklists for covering cross-cutting themes that are usually not mainstreamed in •�assessment methodologies, as the one already made in the case of gender. These additional checklists would encompass mainstreaming issues such as ethnic analysis when relevant, governance and institutional capacities, social capital and inclusion, recovery information management, and disaster risk reduction.

Format for developing an Integrated Recovery Framework (IRF) and an associated •�Integrated Plan of Action (IPA) for all recovery stakeholders at the national level.

Information management tool for mapping recovery needs, capacities and gaps •�across the recovery time line.

Roster of recovery assessment and analysis team resources.•�

Training packages (pre-disaster and post disaster rapid refresher versions). •�

The •• design of the framework should be functional, use visual tools and describe practical examples. It should cover operational definitions of the main concepts and refer to the existing and emerging methodologies and tools.

The •• scope, purpose and limitations of the PDNA must be clarified at the outset. For example, the proposed Rapid Recovery Needs Assessment (RRNA) tool should be seen as a tool that provides a broad sketch of recovery needs and capacities in different sectors and helps guide future detailed and ongoing assessments of recovery and reconstruction needs by different local and sector specific actors.

The •• guidelines for recovery assessment should clarify the following among other components: function, timing and scope of the assessment; national context; assessment team design; mainstreaming risk reduction, cross-cutting issues and other development needs; context and participation of the affected communities; national and local partnerships; data collection and processing; rapid recovery needs assessment and change monitoring; preparedness and capacity building; media and the dissemination of needs.


Process of developing and owning the assessment method is crucial to producing a ••good assessment method. Thus the PDNA development process should be participative involving NGOs and non UN stakeholders.

PDNA’s design should take cognizance of the other frameworks and tools being developed ••at the corporate level and piloted at the country level. This includes tools like the Needs Analysis Framework (NAF) and the REDLAC methodology for emergency needs or the simplified ECLAC sector wise guidelines for reconstruction needs.

The use of the PDNA framework should be preceded by creating an•• enabling environment for recovery. This should include:

Awareness•� regarding recovery concepts and opportunities needs to be raised amongst different actors at the international, regional and national level. This should include the UN system, government actors and civil society actors. This should be complemented by building disaster risk reduction capacity and measures for mainstreaming it in recovery through both pre- and post-disaster efforts. A uniform understanding of recovery is a pre-requisite for a successful joint needs assessment. This understanding should be built before a disaster happens, as part of contingency planning efforts.

The key for an effective and comprehensive assessment and recovery process is •�coordination among stakeholders and synergy between methodologies. It is therefore crucial for the PDNA to help develop a coordination mechanism during pre-disaster contingency planning or post-disaster emergency response, which involves all relevant stakeholders at the national level and that, assures an effective link to local recovery processes.

The PDNA framework’s launch and adaptation should be complimented with building •�international and local understanding of the PDNA and capacities of people who would be using the framework.

The PDNA must be •� contextualized and institutionalised at the national level. The aim of the PDNA process should be to initiate a dialogue on recovery and to help each country develop its own PDNA based on the local context, capacities and needs.

As a part of its development the PDNA should be piloted in different countries and ••regions. Past and new experiences related to the use of the PDNA should be regularly documented and used for training and the adaptation of PDNA at the global and national level. Furthermore, these examples could also help create buy-in in new areas and amongst new actors.


Introduction

1.1 Background A range of stakeholders including national governments, the United Nations (UN) system, international financial institutions (IFIs), donors, international non-government organizations (INGOs), local NGOs and communities are engaged in post-disaster recovery operations. Their interventions in recovery are guided by various recovery needs assessment exercises by individual and or multiple agencies. The methodology, time line, processes and systems for such recovery needs assessments vary across stakeholders. Such variations in methods and related assessment outputs, challenges comparability across assessments and, often presents conflicting images of needs. These conflicts lead to coordination challenges, both within and across recovery agencies, with recovery donors and with other humanitarian and development actors. These experiences and related lessons call for development of a comprehensive and system-wide recovery needs assessment framework, which may be used by different recovery stakeholders to conduct joint and independent assessments at different points, during the disaster time line and share findings in a comparable way.

In this light, both the International Recovery Platform (IRP) and the IASC Cluster Working Group on Early Recovery (CWGER) have identified the need for developing a set of Post Disaster Recovery Needs Assessment (PDNA) methodology, guidelines and toolkit in their work plans. They hope the PDNA will help coordinate recovery efforts across different sectors (shelter, livelihoods, governance, environment, gender etc.) and with a risk reduction focus. In response to these expressed needs and related plans, the PDNA project has been developed. It is led by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in its capacity as cluster lead for Early Recovery and as a part of the IRP and CWGER. An agreement has been entered into with the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLAC) to help design the framework.

The primary purpose of the PDNA framework is to provide all actors in the recovery process – including national and local authorities, international agencies and local communities – with a multi-sectoral, technical overview of the damage and loss patterns and the principal recovery needs and priorities to be addressed to help with reconstruction, development and risk reduction. Thus, the PDNA will:

serve as a planning and coordination framework for a multi-stakeholder, mutually a. agreed recovery strategy, owned by the government and supported by the international community;

identify prioritized benchmarks, outcomes and desired results as early efforts are made to b. repair and restore social, physical, institutional and economic systems;

inform and guide the decision-making process within the donor community with regard to c. commitments and pledges for recovery, from initial contributions during the humanitarian phase, through to contributions channelled through reconstruction conferences, consultative groups and other resource mobilization mechanisms; and,

provide the foundation for the formulation of early recovery programmes in each sector d. and geographic area, identifying opportunities for risk reduction.


In run up to developing the PDNA framework, the UNDP and ECLAC have commissioned this review of existing and emerging recovery needs assessment methodologies and tools at the international and local levels. The review includes methodologies used by different stakeholders (governments, UN agencies, INGOs, NGOs etc.), especially during recent disasters in Asia and Latin America. This review will help map existing and emerging recovery assessment methodologies and review experiences, lessons, gaps and trends related to their use and development. These will be translated into recommendations for the development of the PDNA framework.

1.2 The Post Disaster Recovery Needs Assessment Review Initiative

1.2.1 Terms of reference The review was conducted by two consultants, Shivani Khanna and Christina Bollin, each focusing on recovery assessments and experiences in Asia and Latin America respectively.

Their ToR was tasked with the following:

Compile and compare existing needs assessment methodologies used by the UN system, a. other international and regional organizations, national authorities, and non-governmental organizations.

Pay special attention to OCHA’s Need Analysis Framework for humanitarian operations as b. well as other methodologies in use to ascertain needs beyond for the humanitarian and moving towards the reconstruction phase.

Highlight lessons learnt in the application of these methodologies and to present best c. practices in post disaster needs assessments.

Compile recommendations relevant to the development of common guidelines for an d. integrated, systemic, coordinated and coherent PDNA process. Focus on recommendations of the recent reports on recovery such as the TEC (Tsunami Evaluation Coalition) report.

The report was expected to cover:

A review of known existing methodologies and or practices followed to determine post-disaster recovery needs, as distinct from the humanitarian and emergency ones.

Reference recent examples which illustrate lessons learnt in terms of needs evaluation, i. considering this as a participatory process which involves the affected communities and population as well as the donor’s and government’s perception of needs.

An analysis of how these needs assessment practices may be incorporated into a coherent ii. process that moves from the emergency to the recovery and reconstruction phase.

A table with the main characteristics of existing methodologies that are reviewed iii. with reference to country/region, date, lead agencies, characteristics, strengths and challenges.

A bibliography of methodologies, tools, lesson learnt and experience documents. iv.


1.2.2 Objectives In line with the above ToR the PDNA review has been designed to meet the following objectives:

to provide a comparative overview – commonalities, differences, complementarities, a. strengths and challenges – of existing and emerging post disaster needs assessment methodologies, frameworks and tools; to identify lessons related to the application of these methodologies in recent flood, b. tsunami, earthquake and hurricane experiences in Asia and Latin America; and to seek and document recommendations for developing a comprehensive PDNA c. framework.

1.2.3 ScopeThe review focuses on recovery ‘needs’ assessments as different from, but linked to recovery ‘damage and loss’ assessments. It will cover the methodologies used by different actors including the national governments, UN agencies, IFIs like the World Bank, regional banks (like the ADB, IADB etc), INGOs, local NGOs and other related actors in Asia and Latin America. It specifically reviews the methodologies used during rapid onset disasters like earthquakes, floods, hurricanes and tsunamis.

This review is also linked to two additional and supportive reviews on damage and loss data and information management and gender dimensions of recovery assessments. These are being covered by two consultants: Julio Serge and Savitri Bisnath respectively. The three reports should be read in conjunction to get an understanding of the current and emerging landscape for the PDNA.

1.2.4 Methodology The methodology for this review centred on the use of two data collection tools:

Desk review a. of existing and draft recovery needs assessment methodologies, related assessments reports, assessment evaluations, disaster recovery experiences and lessons learnt documents.

Semi-structured interviews and or Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) b. with stakeholders at the global, regional and national level in Asia and Latin America. Three sets of stakeholders were covered, including those who have been involved in:

developing and or modifying recovery needs assessment methodologies and tools; •�

undertaking recovery needs assessments; and •�

using the findings of needs assessments for recovery planning•�

The consultants (each focusing on Asia and Latin America respectively) visited the following countries to conduct interviews and FGDs:

Switzerland (Geneva) and USA (Washington) to meet with staff at the headquarters.••

Bangladesh (Dhaka), India (Chennai and Delhi) and Sri Lanka (Colombo) to meet with staff ••at the regional and national level in Asia.

Panama and Guatemala to meet with staff at the regional and national level in Latin ••America.


Telephone interviews and e-discussions were conducted with informants who could not be met personally. A total of 75 people were interviewed covering representatives of the IFI’s like the World Bank and ADB, UN system (primarily UNDP, OCHA, UNICEF, WFP and FAO), some government officials, Red Cross movement, INGOs, NGOs, donors and consultants. For a list of interviewees refer to Annex 1.

An information sheet and a checklist of inquiry points and questions was developed to help guide the primary and secondary data collection process, including desk review, interviews and FGDs. Refer to Annex 2 for the information sheet and Annex 3 for the checklist.

1.2.5 Time-frame The two month long study commenced in April 2007 and was concluded in June 2007. This included planning and implementing the review and documenting its findings in the form of this draft report. The report was reviewed by the Technical Overview Committee (TOC) in July, was used to inform the development of the PDNA guide in July- August 2007, and its final form is being submitted to the final meeting of Technical Oversight Committee (TOC) workshop of the PDNA.

1.2.6 Limitations of the review process The review process was characterized by the following limitations, which had implications on the findings presented in this report:

The scope and focus of the PDNA has been changing in response to the changes in the a. international humanitarian environment. The initiative initially proposed to produce a PDNA methodology (with guidelines) and a toolkit. However as many UN agencies and INGOs started simultaneously producing sector specific recovery assessment tools, the initiative changed its objective to producing a PDNA framework, that could help integrate these assessments. This larger change has also altered the focus of this review, from mapping and reviewing past and existing methodologies to also covering emerging recovery methodologies, which in many cases are still under design and have not yet been applied.

In terms of scope, this review focuses on assessment methodologies related to rapid b. onset disasters like hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, floods not slow onset disasters like droughts.

Given the available time and financial resources, only a small sample of recovery actors c. (especially government officials) were covered through personal and tele-interviews and even lesser through focus group discussions.

The rapid turnover of agency staff that was involved in recovery needs assessments and d. unavailability of their new contact details limited the number of interviewees and the representative views of different recovery actors from being factored in this report.

Due to the focus on rapid onset disasters and the limitations of time the review is limited e. to experiences from Asia and Latin America and does not consider specific experiences gained in other regions, especially in Africa.

Lack of assessment methodology related process documentation and limited access to f. agency specific assessment reports challenged the desk review.


2 Review of Post Disaster Recovery Needs Assessment Methodologies

2.1 Overview of Recovery Needs Assessment Methodologies A review of literature related to needs assessments reveals that broadly needs assessments in the context of post-disaster management and risk reduction refers to an exercise or a set of exercises within a time-frame or time line that involves collection, analysis and sharing of data and information on the current and emerging needs of disaster affected communities and stakeholders. These are linked to damage and loss assessments; however they go a step further to identify and analyze ‘needs’ of the affected in order to mobilize resources and for response, recovery or reconstruction activities.

There are various types of needs assessments. These can be categorised on the basis of their

Nature:••

formal assessments, involving systematic data collection and analysis across one or a. more sectors and using a pre-defined methodology; and

non-formal assessment, involving a user-specific and usually, unstructured process of b. information gathering and a descriptive analysis of the situation (Darcy and Hofmann, 2003).

Purpose: •• Designed to answer one or more of the following decision making questions (Darcy and Hofmann, 2003)

whether to intervene;a.

the nature and scale of the intervention;b.

prioritization and allocation of resources and; c.

programme design and planning.d.

Subject matter focus and coverage: •• Specialised sector/theme specific or, cross-sectoral assessment.

Process: •• One-off situational analysis and needs assessment or ongoing needs assessment.

Assessment team composition:•• Single agency/stakeholder assessment or multi agency/stakeholder assessment.

Audience:•• External actors like donors, government, implementing agencies, communities etc. or internal actors, like the concerned agency team and its donors.

These variations in types of assessments exist because of the variations in the nature of disasters, the range and role of relevant stakeholders and their relationships in a given time and context. These assessments can be reviewed for their utility and appropriateness based on the characteristics of time-lines, coverage, participation, coordination, dissemination, continuity, outputs and outcomes. The Tsunami Evaluation Coalition’s (TEC) report on the review of needs


assessment after the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami concluded that the effectiveness of needs assessments can be, “reviewed in terms of added value, dissemination and influence on appeals and decisions.” Given this understanding of needs assessments it can be concluded that the variation in needs assessments is bound to be large given the different types of information needs at different times and levels across the disaster time line.

A review of past methodologies used to map the disaster affected community’s needs reveals that, while there are many methods to assess emergency needs and some to assess reconstruction and development needs, there are very few methods that exclusively focus on ‘recovery’ needs. This is primarily a reflection of the nature of post disaster activities that humanitarian and development actors support. Historically data from emergency needs assessments has been used in conjunction with a ‘sense of recovery needs’ to identify the transitional and early recovery needs of affected communities. More recently, many organizations and governments are developing assessment methods that consciously identify recovery needs. This is because of the overarching lessons that recovery activities are the key to help communities move from the emergency mode towards sustainable reconstruction, risk reduction and development.

Given this background, this section presents an overview of those needs assessment methodologies, frameworks and tools that are multi-sectoral in content and are designed for use at agency or inter-agency levels. These may be either ‘recovery focussed’ (subsection 2.1.1) or ‘recovery relevant’ (subsection 2.1.2). The later refers to methodologies that may be primarily designed for emergency or reconstruction needs, but also provides useful data/information for assessing recovery needs. Recovery relevant methodologies are covered in acknowledgement of the fact that disaster response is a layered process (with varying levels of focus on preparedness, emergency, recovery, rehabilitation, reconstruction and mitigation) rather than a linear one.

Each methodology is analysed and reviewed using the following structure:

Background a.

Content and Designb.

Application experiences c.

Strengths and challengesd.

Inputs - lessons for PDNAe.

This analysis covers lessons related to the use of these methodologies during recent disasters in Asia and Latin America and the evolution of the methods with progressive applications. In some cases examples from other parts of the world have also been shared. These recovery-focused and recovery-relevant methodologies are also captured in a tabular form for quick review in Annex 4.

In addition to these multi-sectoral needs assessment methodologies, a broad range of sector specific needs assessment tools have/are being developed. Some of these methods are briefly covered (subsection 2.1.3) to inform the PDNA framework. Finally, recent recovery initiatives at the international and national level, which could provide pilot and partnership opportunities for the PDNA are identified (subsection 2.1.4) to help guide the PDNA contextualization process at the national level.


Figure1: List of reviewed recovery focussed and relevant methodologies and initiatives

RECOVERY FOCUSSED METHODOLOGIES AND TOOLS

Post Disaster Damage and Needs Assessment (PDNA) for Early Recovery in Bangladesh (2007)

Damage and Needs Assessment (DANA) Methodology in Vietnam (2006)

Needs assessment method for Post-earthquake Early Recovery in Pakistan (2005)

UNDP/BCPR Post-disaster Recovery Guidelines (2007)

Integrated Livelihood Assessment Guidelines, FAO and ILO (2007)

Recovery Assessment Mechanisms and Methods of IFRC (2005 onwards)

RECOVERY RELEVANT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES AND FRAMEWORKS

Needs Analysis Framework, OCHA (2005)

Multi-sectoral Rapid Assessment (MRA) methodology, UNICEF (2006)

Guidelines for Emergency Assessment, IFRC (October 2005)

Rapid Assessment for Humanitarian Assistance, REDLAC (2006)

Community Based Disaster Loss and Needs Assessment, TISS (2005)

Community Damage Assessment and Demand Analysis Methodology, AIDMI (2005)

Damage Assessment and Needs Analysis Methodology, ADPC (2000)

Evaluation of damages and analysis of needs/ Evaluación de daños y análisis de necesidades, EDAN, USAID/OFDA (1995 onwards)

Methodology for Estimating the Socio-economic and Environmental Impact of Disasters, ECLAC (2003)

People’s Consultations on Post tsunami Relief, Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Sri Lanka (2005)

SECTOR SPECIFIC NEEDS ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES

Emergency Food Security Assessment, WFP (2005)

Rapid Health Assessment, Global Health Cluster (2007)

Guidelines for HIV/AIDS Interventions in Emergency Settings, IASC

Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, Chronic Crises or Early Reconstruction, INEE (2004/ 2006)

Post-disaster environmental needs assessment practical guide (2007)

FURTHER INITIATIVES WITH RELEVANCE FOR PDNA

Strengthening the Social Analysis Component in Rapid Impact and Vulnerability Assessment IFRC/ProVention Consortium (2007)

The Good Enough Guide - Impact measurement and accountability in emergencies, ECBG (2007)

Recovery Capacity Building Initiative, World Bank (2007)

Pre-disaster Recovery Preparedness Initiative, ILO and UNDP (2007)


2.1.1 Recovery Focussed Methodologies And Tools This section reviews needs assessment methodologies, frameworks and tools that cover recovery needs in particular. Please note that many of these methodologies and processes are currently being developed and have not been tested in the field. Nevertheless they have been included to get a perspective on the direction in which different recovery assessments actors are moving and designs emerging.

a. Post Disaster Damage and Needs Assessment (PDNA) for Early Recovery in Bangladesh (2007):

Background: In an effort to operationalise the cluster approach to humanitarian response in Bangladesh, UNDP Bangladesh as the lead agency for the Early Recovery (ER) cluster has formulated an interim set of PDNA guidelines and a data collection tool for identifying early recovery needs in Bangladesh. The guidelines and tools are planned to be used until the Cluster Working Group on Early Recovery (CWGER) develops the global PDNA tool.

The guidelines were developed as a measure of preparedness for disaster recovery, especially to help with resource mobilization and recovery planning after disasters such as annual floods in Bangladesh. It was developed by a working group consisting of members from the Government of Bangladesh (GoB), NGOs, donors and UN agencies, specially the early recovery cluster member organizations including the FAO, ILO, IOM, UNICEF, WHO, IFRC and WFP. These are currently being validated through stakeholder reviews.

The guidelines were developed in lines with the Disaster Emergency Response (DER) group’s2 Rapid Emergency Needs Assessment (RENA) format. The RENA was used during the 2004 floods for capturing emergency needs and to some extent recovery needs of up to 12 months after the flood. However it was felt that while the RENA needed to be administered at the beginning or peak emergency stage, that time was too early to identify recovery needs. Thus the RENA was revised and a separate PDNA assessment tool and guidelines was designed. The PDNA tool has been designed in a manner that it is linked to the RENA, IASC contingency planning process and used for monitoring recovery projects.

Design and Content: The guidelines for the PDNA include an 8 point advisory and a series of notes for the assessment team to consider before conducting the assessment. These notes explain the structure of assessment, definitions of variables, potential source of primary and secondary data, requirements for collecting data and proposed timing for the assessment. These notes could be used as a refresher for team members trained in the use of PDNA and a checklist for those who have not been trained.

The assessment tool is divided into three distinct sections:

Assessment of disruption and damage;1. Information on ongoing emergency response and recovery activities; and 2. External assistance needs for early recovery.3.

The sub-sections in each section have been designed in line with the cluster approach to

2 The DER Group was formed in Bangladesh in 2001 to bring together Government, NGOs, donors and UN Agencies concerned with improving the effectiveness and efficiency of emergency response. Chaired by the WFP it is the disaster management sub-group of the Local Consultative Group (LCG) in Bangladesh. The LCG is a multi-thematic, multi-stakeholder and multi-sector forum consisting of bi-lateral and multi-lateral donors, government, UN and NGOs that engage in development dialogue and donor coordination in Bangladesh. For more information: http://www.lcgbangladesh.org


help different actors plan recovery both as individual agencies and collectively. For example, assessment on damages has been clustered around food, agriculture, water and sanitation, health, protection etc. The tool is designed to be administered at the lower administrative levels- the Union level in the rural areas and the Ward level in the urban municipal areas of Bangladesh.

Application: Since the development of the PDNA guidelines and tool in 2007 there has not been a significant disaster in the country. However, like the RENA, the PDNA is planned to be administered after the disaster by pre-qualified NGOs3 located in the disaster affected area. These NGOs have large presence in the country and owing to their development work and mandate have baseline data of communities that they have been working with. For example, ICDDR, B (International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh) has detailed demographic database of 40 years for communities (especially children) that they work with. Their presence through Health Centres in these communities helps them reach out to the community for assessments and response promptly after a disaster.

Another example is Proshika, one of the largest membership based development organization in Bangladesh. Its presence in 300 Upazilas and focus on human development and empowerment of the poor makes it an inevitable partner for factoring disaster risk reduction in recovery and development. Proshika already has a system for emergency needs assessment channelled through its Area Development Centre at the Union level. For large scale disasters it mobilises a Regional Team consisting of members from central and field level teams to conduct community based assessments. It also works with the government and other development actors (donors, CBOs etc.) to conduct and share the findings of these assessments. Both these organizations used the RENA format during the 2004 floods and are being trained to use the PDNA for recovery during a future disaster.

Strengths and challenges: The strengths of the methodology is in the participative process used to design it. Its contextual characteristic evident in the use of variables and categories relevant to Bangladesh and links with the RENA format for emergency assessment will not only help use the RENA information as baseline for the PDNA, but also engage the pre-qualified NGOs in recovery assessments. The involvement of these NGOs capitalises on the existing capacity at the local level and could help integrate recovery in the larger development work of these NGOs.

The PDNA’s simple and concise design with a set of guidelines (10 pages) and assessment formats (25 pages for all three tools) is easy for assessment team members at the local level to use. It is also designed to capture disaggregated data at the local administrative level. Owing to the consistency of variables across local units for data collection, this data is amenable for aggregation at the national level. While desegregated data is crucial for planning recovery programmes and projects, in an aggregated form it will help provide a comprehensive view of resource needs.

3 It is a government endorsed process initiated by the UN system to help identify and build the capacity of local NGOs in different parts of Bangladesh for disaster preparedness, response and mitigation. These NGOs are assessed for financial and technical ca-pacity as a part of the qualification process. This initiative capitalizes on the strong non-profit sector capacity in the country and helps the government and UN ensure linkages with communities at risk through these NGOs. It also helps build local capacity in DRR and helps mainstream DRR in development.


In terms of content it helps provide a rapid 360 degree review of the recovery landscape after a disaster. It calls for a 3 step process of mapping:

disruptions and damages warranting recovery,i.

relevant response/recovery activities and existing recovery capacities ii.

to help compute external assistance needs for recovery. iii.

It also calls for the use of national development standards for recovery. For example, for costing of agricultural and other non-governmental sector recovery activities it proposes the use market rates in Bangladesh.

The challenge lies in building the capacity of the assessment team to use the PDNA guidelines and assessment formats. However, given its inspiration from the RENA format, the PDNA can develop compatible capacity building systems for supporting recovery assessment. These may include developing trainings, recovery assessment team roster, team deployment plan and information management system. Another challenge is that many members of the DER group, who will be mobilised for recovery assessments at the lower administrative level, feel that there is no need to have a separate format for recovery assessment. They recommend the use of the RENA format with a few additional questions for recovery. The need for an exclusive assessment and its objectives vis-à-vis the RENA is pending clarification. Picking from the gender and age segregated categories in the RENA format, the PDNA could also build these sub-categories in sections like the number of people affected in the ‘General Condition’ section of the assessment format. Most importantly just like the RENA the PDNA should be owned by members of the DER group or a similar recovery coordination group within the LCG and in government systems. Currently the government conducts a parallel needs, damage and loss assessment, using the format D in its Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) document. Parallel and uncoordinated assessments may challenge the resource mobilisation and planning position of recovery stakeholders.

Inputs for PDNA: The Bangladesh PDNA provides a bottom up and country focussed design plan and execution approach to the PDNA. It is a reflection of the recovery needs related data, information and analysis requirements at the national level by local actors. Thus it calls for the PDNA to locally contextualize any framework that it develops at the global level.

The PDNA framework at the global level could use the Bangladesh guidelines and tools to inform the design of its own rapid assessment tool and guidelines. It should also strengthen formal linkages with existing humanitarian groups and emergency needs assessment methods. This should be planned as a measure of preparedness. The strategy to factor the PDNA in the contingency planning process is also a good means to institutionalise the PDNA. It should also look at capitalising on the strengths of development actors as providers of baseline information on communities and assessment team members in the short term. Their capacity could be built for conducting needs assessment and acting as focal points for risk reduction measures in the long term. This will help mainstreaming risk reduction measures initialised during response and recovery in long term development. The PDNA team will have to explore local means of engaging with these actors. Another lesson is working closely with the government to create a buy-in for the PDNA. While in Bangladesh there are parallel assessments by the government for the RENA and thus for the PDNA, this situation should be avoided in other countries. Existing government assessments may be revised to factor the PDNA.


b. Damage and Needs Assessment (DANA) methodology in Vietnam (2006):

Background: A standard methodology for damage and needs assessment (DANA) has been developed in Vietnam in 2006, to help the government assess losses and needs at the provincial and national level for immediate response, rehabilitation and recovery. The DANA was jointly developed by the Government of Vietnam’s (GoV) Central Committee for Floods and Storm Control (CCFSC) and the General Statistic Office (GSO), the Vietnam National Red Cross (VNRC) and UNDP Vietnam along with the participation of NGOs like Oxfam GB.

Vietnam DANA is a unified assessment and reporting system, with a focus on water-related disasters. It includes two sets of guidelines one each for disaster damage assessment and disaster needs assessment. It is also developing detailed plans for the adoption and use of the DANA by key stakeholders at the national and local levels. This includes detailed guidance for operationalising the assessment system, including data management, analysis and reporting.

Design and Content: To help use the DANA methodology effectively, a package of the following tools has been developed in Vietnam.

A Damage Assessment manual, with the forms, and guidance on how to collect data, how a. to verify data and how to record data. The manual is designed for village leaders, commune and district officials, staff and volunteers of the VNRC.

A detailed GIS based software called DANA 1.0 that would help capture damage and needs b. data and information at the district level, which can be integrated and read at the country level.

A Training Program (curriculum document) for training of officers at different levels for c. conducting DANA and on the use of the DANA software.

The goal of the DANA assessment is clarified in the DANA manual: to help “produce a comprehensive, unified and highly feasible action plan on the basis of effective mobilization of resources and facilities to carry out planed activities with flexibly in accordance with changing disaster needs.”

The first part of DANA manual provides guidelines and formats for damage assessment. The second part provides guidelines for relief/response needs assessment. The needs assessment part divides the assessment into the following three types corresponding to the three stages of disaster response observed by the national government:

Emergency stage needs: i. within the first 3 days from the disaster warning and within 7 days from the time of disaster.

Post-disaster stage: ii. 3 month from the emergency stage until the community can meet its basic needs.

Rehabilitation and recovery stage:iii. from after the emergency stage to implementation of development activities.

While the second stage is termed as ‘post disaster,’ it includes guidelines and formats for mapping needs related to early and transitional recovery, like “ food, clean water, health care, necessities, fuel, environmental sanitation, light (electricity), accommodation, education, medicine and livelihood support (seeds, livestock, poultry) which help communities gradually stabilize their


life.” The third stage covers medium to long term recovery needs like “rebuilding or replacement of damaged houses and infrastructure.”

The guidelines include a description of concepts, objectives, key requirements, methodology (for collecting and analyzing needs) and forms and outlines for presenting needs data for each stage. The DANA proposes the use of the following needs assessment methods to cover different needs of actors and the disaster context:

General assessment according to administrative system for disaster managementa.

Speciality assessmentb.

External assessment based on specific requestc.

Community-based assessment d.

It is designed to capture recovery needs in the sectors of housing and shelter, education, health care, other construction, agro-forestry, irrigation, transportation, fisheries, communication, industry, clean water and environmental sanitation and knowledge. Its focus is on outlining the ‘what of’ assessment more than the ‘how of’ assessment.

It is important to note that both the damage and needs assessment guidelines and tools for all three stages are compiled in one manual. This promotes the concept of assessments as a process across the evolving disaster time line and changing post disaster needs from emergency to recovery and reconstruction.

Application: This methodology is being fine tuned through a consultative process with the GoV’s administrative bodies at the provincial level. It has not been applied in the context of a disaster as yet. Nevertheless, efforts are underway to build capacities of potential assessment team members to use the assessment method and related software in the event of a future water related disaster. These stakeholders would include village leaders, commune and district officials, staff and volunteers of the VNRC.

Strengths and Challenges: The strength of this methodology is its participative development process and ownership by national and local actors in the government and the humanitarian system. For example, the needs assessment forms were developed consultatively with inputs from 64 provincial administrative bodies and related agencies in Vietnam. Its strategy of complementing the methodology with a support system for capacity building (training of potential assessment team members) and a standardized GIS software (for data storage, access, statistical analysis and reporting) is a comprehensive approach to not only report needs, but to build capacity to map disaster risks in the long run.

It also calls for pre-, during and post- disaster mechanisms related to assessments, thus inserting the element of preparedness and learning lessons across time. Clear definitions of the different types of needs – emergency, post disaster and recovery and rehabilitation- have been presented. These however could be reviewed for consistency to the international understanding of these concepts. As a part of its design it also capitalizes on the existing local capacity of development and disaster actors like the VNRC and government administrative officials to conduct local assessment.

Some challenges include the use of terminology for mapping needs during the 3 distinct stages of disaster response. While needs in the emergency phase are clear, the needs during the post-disaster phase, while referred to as relief needs are mostly ‘early recovery needs.’ For example,


needs like education and livelihood support (seeds, livestock, poultry), “which help communities gradually stabilize their life.”

Inputs/lessons for PDNA: Although this methodology is focused on water related disasters, it could be expanded to cover other natural disasters. This is a good example of a national effort to develop a home grown damage and needs assessment methodology that is owned by the national government. Like the Bangladesh PDNA, this also capitalizes on the existing local capacity of development and disaster actors VNRC and government administrative officials to conduct assessment. Its comprehensive approach of developing DANA as a package of tools: manual with guidelines and formats, software and training manual is crucial to quickly and effectively operationalising assessments after a disaster. Although the DANA was launched by a UNDP initiative it has consciously planned its institutionalization in a government department, which in the long run will also help with coordination of stakeholders.

c. Needs assessment method for Post-earthquake Early Recovery in Pakistan (2005):

Background: The cluster approach to humanitarian response was formally implemented for the first time in Asia in 2005 after the Pakistan earthquake. Owing to the UNDP’s role as the cluster lead for early recovery the UNDP/BCPR (S&SW Asia) helped develop a ToR to conduct an exclusive recovery needs assessment. The ToR that outlined the assessment method acknowledged the distinction between long-term reconstruction and recovery needs (to be identified by the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank’s DLA) and the early recovery needs that should be addressed soon after the disaster. The recovery assessment was designed to pave the way for long term sustainable development and disaster risk reduction. It was based on the assessments and lessons learnt during previous recovery operations in Asia, like the 2003 Bam earthquake and the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami.

Design and Content: The 20 page ToR is the core documentation for the assessment methodology. It was compiled after the earthquake in response to the past lessons related to recovery assessments and in the context of specific needs in Pakistan. The assessment was designed to help produce an Early Recovery (ER) Framework to activate the recovery cluster. It reflected this focus by outlining a set of rationale to build the ER framework and the expectations from it including:

support to supplemental relief efforts; 1. support to local initiatives in recovery;2. prepare the ground for sustainable and long term recovery and reconstruction; 3. reducing disaster risk.4.

It scope of the recovery assessment was outlined to include both the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of early recovery through the following objectives:

identify key programme areas that need to be prioritized in order to facilitate a. early recovery and transition from relief to reconstruction in different geographic locations;

assess key vulnerabilities and identify strategic response to address them over the b. next six to eight months; and

identify and anticipate spontaneous early recovery efforts of the affected communities c. and devise strategies to strengthen local capacities to support these


The ToR calls for the assessment to capture “as complete as possible a picture of the early recovery needs of the different socio-economic categories, specially gender, age based and minority groups.” It clarifies the key sectors for assessments and related roles and responsibilities of various agencies. For example for the health sector the proposed focal point was Save the Children, WHO and UNFPA, for the financial services sector it was Pakistan Microfinance Network etc. It also provides a set of guiding questions, issues and methods for collecting information for different sectors. These are included as Annexes to the TOR. The sectors covered include governance, shelter, resettlement and land, environment, gender, disaster risk reduction, education, social protection, livelihoods and environment and water and sanitation.

Acknowledging the urgency to assess early recovery needs and the logistical challenges in organizing a comprehensive field mission, this common rapid needs assessment relied on a combination of secondary and primary (through field visits) data collection methods and sources. It also clarifies the nuts and bolts of the assessment mission and outputs by providing an outline for the assessment report that could help sectoral assessors maintain consistency in presentations of their respective reports.

Application: The ToR guided the early recovery ‘rapid’ needs assessment exercise organised by the UN System, in support of the Government of Pakistan. From the design of the ToR to its execution the assessment’s scope was modified based on the emerging needs in the field. For example, the recovery response needs and period was expanded from 6 to 8 months, to 12 to 18 months. The sectoral coverage too was expanded. This flexibility was needed due to the non-satisfaction of emergency relief needs within the expected period. The needs assessment was also designed to be extensive and participative as it involved over 60 people from the UN system, government authorities and NGOs. It used community participation tools like community consultations during the team’s 7 day field visit.

This UN supported recovery needs assessment was followed by a preliminary damage and needs assessment (DNA) by the ADB and WB to identify long-term reconstruction needs. The DNA consciously factored the findings of the relief and early recovery assessments, to arrive at an overall cost of the earthquake which would include relief, early recovery and reconstruction costs. The DNA also used the 10 point guiding principles4 for recovery for its analysis of needs and recovery strategies by sector. For details on the UNDP guiding principles for recovery refer to subsection 2.1.1 d. of this report.

Based on these assessments the ER framework and plan was designed. The assessment needs data was reviewed with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) indicators to arrive at strategic areas for recovery planning. Both the recovery assessment and framework was shared at the donor’s conference late 2005. The ER plan proposed for additional detailed assessments in different sectors related to particular recovery needs of the people. For example, the livelihoods recovery framework called for, “collecting gender disaggregated baseline data and conduct assessments of available raw materials and production assets,” also “undertake participatory needs assessments and recovery planning at the community level.”

4 The guiding principles for recovery identified by the UNDP include: rapid rebuilding of people’s livelihoods, independence and self-sufficiency, subsidiarity and decentralization, a focus on most vulnerable and socially disadvantaged groups, securing development gains, strengthening capacities to manage the recovery process, transparency and accountability, avoid creation of new disaster risks, encouraging the private sector and civil society engagement, and coordination and coherent approaches to recovery.


Strengths and challenges: The ToR that served as the guiding tool for the recovery assessment was brief, comprehensive, user-friendly (with a set of guidelines, questions and format for reporting) and flexible, considering its use for the first time. It had a clear focus on building the early recovery framework; focus on ‘what’ and ‘how’ of early recovery. It clarified time duration for early recovery needs (6-8 months in the ToR and 12-18 months in the final report). Its sector focused approach and the large multi-stakeholder assessment team (of over 60 people including representatives from the government and NGOs) helped provide an overview of recovery needs from different angles and across different levels. Its recognition of the recovery capacity and needs at the local level was also worth noting. Its biggest strength was the influence it had in using the UNDP’s guiding principles for recovery in the DNA by the WB and ADB. It clearly acknowledged the scope and limitations of the rapid recovery needs assessment and recommended the need for detailed sector assessments for recovery planning.

The challenge faced by the assessment was its timings. Although it was conducted a month into the disaster, it was regarded as early owing to the delay in satisfaction of people’s relief needs. Also like during most disasters the informants suffered from assessment fatigue, with a range of emergency assessments preceding the recovery assessment. Lack of clarity amongst stakeholders, on the difference between recovery and reconstruction needs and their inter-relationship posed a challenge during the donor’s conference in November 2005, when both the recovery assessment and DNA findings were shared. Despite its usefulness the lack of documentation and lessons learnt documentation on the development and use of this methodology may posse challenges for its future use.

Lessons and inputs for PDNA: The PDNA framework can use the ToR developed for this assessment to guide the development of a ToR for a rapid PDNA guideline to introduce the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of a PDNA assessment. The guideline however should begin with a brief clarification on the use of terminologies for identifying needs at different times in a disaster, including emergency, recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction. The mechanisms to mobilise a multi-sectoral and large assessment team of over 60 people within the short time frame should also be documented and included as a part of the guidance notes for the PDNA. The experience of the Pakistan assessment could also be used to detail scenarios in the PDNA training package. It could be a scenario when the country decides to operationalise the cluster approach for humanitarian response, especially the recovery cluster for the first time or when emergency phase extends longer than expected due to geographical and meteorological conditions etc.

d. UNDP/BCPR Post-disaster Recovery Guidelines (2007):

Background: UNDP-BCPR compiled the first draft of the recovery guidelines in 2004.The guidelines have been since revised based on recovery experiences especially related to the Indian Ocean Tsunami (2004), Guyana floods (2005)5 and the South Asia earthquake (2005).6 The lessons from its use in LAC, specially Bolivia, Colombia and Venezuela have been documented to further inform the development of this living document.7 The latest draft of the recovery guidelines (February 2007) includes practice examples from various parts of the world related to operationalising different recovery guidelines.

5 See UNDP/ECLAC (2005): Guyana. Socio-economic assessment of the damages and losses caused by the January-February 2005 flooding, especially chapter 6 on lessons and guidelines.

6 Refer to subsection 2.1.1 c on needs assessment method for post-earthquake early recovery in Pakistan.7 See UNDP/BCPR-LAC (2005): Lecciones aprendidas en los procesos de recuperación y desarrollo posdesastre en América Latina

y el Caribe, Bogotá (compilador: Camilo Cárdenas).


Design and content: The guidelines have been designed in recognition of the need for recovery strategies to fill the existing gap between response and long-term reconstruction. It is based on the experience that post-disaster response, recovery and reconstruction processes often rebuild conditions of risk or even increase vulnerability. The guidelines thus aim to help recovery stakeholders seize the opportunity for risk reduction instead of returning to pre-disaster development. It provides a conceptual framework, guiding principles, steps to facilitate recovery planning in the aftermath of a disaster, and an outline for an institutional framework for recovery.

The conceptual framework is guided by the vision of “sustainable recovery” which i. leads to the definition of 10 guiding principles:

Mainstreaming disaster reduction in the recovery/development processii.

Improving/maintaining coordinationiii.

Promoting participatory approaches and decentralised planning and programming iv. for recovery

Enhancing safety standards and integrating risk reduction in reconstruction and v. development

Improving the living conditions of the affected communities and sectorsvi.

Building local and national capacities for increased resilience, risk management and vii. sustainable development

Taking advantage of ongoing initiativesviii.

Gender sensitivityix.

Demonstrative effects, andx.

Monitoring, evaluating and learningxi.

For planning recovery, the document recommends the development of a recovery framework8 in order to:

organise the country’s response and recovery approach; •

review and take stock of the recovery needs to get the community/country back on •track towards sustainable development;

secure wide support, including financial and technical assistance; and•

develop a partnership strategy with participation of multiple stakeholders, including •the affected communities

The guidelines present six steps to launch such a planning process, from the definition of institutional framework and design mechanisms to the determination of implementation capacity, capacity building needs and resources. On this basis the document establishes six sectors that are typically addressed in a recovery framework:

Rehabilitation/recovery of built environment and local infrastructurei.

Employment and livelihoodsii.

Primary infrastructure and lifeline facilitiesiii.

Environmental and water resources managementiv.

Housingv.

Resettlement and familiesvi.

8 United Nations (without year): Fact Sheet. Restoring Lives – The United Nations Early Recovery Framework.


The document emphasises the need to establish an appropriate institutional framework for recovery, especially if there is no structure in place to assure cohesion, coordination and consensus amongst the different stakeholders. UNDP has developed a set of seven recommendations for the development of a recovery framework emphasising that the new structure should not undermine existing institutional frameworks and good governance mechanisms.

Application experiences: These guidelines have been used by the UNDP to inform the development of various recovery assessments and frameworks during past disasters in Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). It has also been used for recovery preparedness through regional trainings in Asia and will be used in an upcoming training of early recovery stakeholders in LAC in July 2007. Through these trainings the UNDP-BCPR plans to strengthen Early Recovery capacities in UN agencies and governments, and establish additional expert groups (associated staff ) at the national and regional level in Latin America and Asia. In LAC UNDP is also working towards integrating early recovery guidelines in the national contingency planning process through OCHA trainings for the UN system.

Strengths and challenges: The fundamental relevance of the guidelines is in its conceptual clarity, which is strengthened by its focus and application in concrete situations Thus it provides the conceptual basis for broad and coherent awareness-raising according to recovery, among the involved stakeholders. Another strength is its validation in several countries. It was not only originally developed based on lessons from different disaster situations, but continues to be amended through use in real disaster situations.

The challenge that the document faces is two-fold: firstly, it does not provide methodologies or practical tools to facilitate the application of these guidelines by stakeholders, especially first time users in a post-disaster situation. To provide tools was not the objective of the document: nevertheless for stakeholders in urgent need of using it in a post-disaster situation, further links to existing tools (e.g. risk assessment tools) would be helpful9. The guidelines are more useful in the pre-disaster phase informing stakeholders of the appropriate measures and precautions in order to facilitate a smooth transition from response to development though coherent and sustainable recovery. The second challenge thus relates to its effective dissemination and use with the help of training and integration in the pre-disaster preparedness processes. Training is already planned throughout Latin America, and recently early recovery activities have been incorporated into the OCHA matrix for the establishment of national inter-agency emergency response plans10.

The guidelines could be used for awareness-raising related to recovery needs and opportunities among as multiple stakeholders. This process may be initiated by a review of the guidelines from other UN agencies and the governments. The guidelines have not yet been broadly discussed amongst the UN agencies. This will be necessary to achieve a broad consensus on terminology, principles, elements and implementation.

Lessons and inputs for PDNA: The guidelines are highly relevant as a conceptual basis for the PDNA initiative. It represents a very complete and coherent fundamental orientation for

9 Such a reference is already planned for the training programme (reference especially to REDLAC, OFDA/EDAN and IFRC assess-ment methodologies) and could be included in the document for this purpose.

10 UNDP/BCPR-LAC (2007): Matrix for the incorporation of the early recovery component in the Inter Agency Emergency Response Plan of the United Nations System, Panama.


recovery processes and most importantly it is based on practical recovery experiences in several countries. Its review by other UN agencies involved in response and recovery could help build strategic partnerships for recovery. Documentation on the use of the guidelines in past assessments (both recovery focussed and reconstruction focussed) should be studied in detail and used for PDNA trainings. It should thus guide the conceptual framework for the PDNA framework and its tools.

e. FAO/ILO Integrated Livelihood Assessment Guidelines: a tool kit for rapid analysis and response to the impact of disasters on the livelihoods of people (2007)

Background: The livelihood approach has been applied by FAO and ILO and by other organizations for a long time. Both the UN agencies have initiated the development of methodologies related to their sectoral focus in post-disaster situations, especially response. Based on the common livelihood approach, they have finally teamed up their efforts for a joint assessment methodology with the objective to facilitate the application of the comprehensive livelihood approach. As the livelihood approach considers long-term and holistic processes, this tool kit has been designed to cover the needs from rapid response through recovery. It also factors recovery aspects from the pre-disaster baseline data phase through all the disaster-related phases. That is the reason why the guidelines are presented as a recovery focused instrument, in spite of the name of the tool kit. The guideline is under development pending the completion of the fourth tool that clarified terminologies, especially concerning the difference and relationship between response and recovery.

Design and Content: The document begins with an introduction of the sustainable livelihood approach. It later outlines the four tools to identify livelihood damages and needs in different disaster related phases and with different objectives. The four tools are designed to help build an integrated system supporting and feeding the results of earlier tools in the more complex and long-term ones. Beyond looking at the impact of a disaster on the people and their current coping strategies, the guidelines are conceived to identify capacities and opportunities for recovery and increased resilience. The guidelines are currently limited to sudden on-set disasters but is planned to be extended to other emergencies.

The four tools composing the system are:

pre-disaster baseline assessment,i.

a quick livelihood impact assessment to be implemented during the first days after ii. the disaster,

a more detailed and long-term (4 to 6 weeks) rapid livelihood assessment and iii.

finally the livelihood response/recovery planningiv. 11.

11 The document is not coherent in the denomination of this – still lacking – instrument.


The following figures assume the role of each of the four instruments in the response process:

Figure 2: Summary of the four instruments of the livelihood assessment guidelines (FAO/ILO 2007)

Element Function Programming / funding target When and whom?

Baseline Gives quantitative data on key aspects of livelihood systems (population, wealth and poverty indicators, occupation etc.). Provides the context for the QIA and RLA so that these tools can more easily be used to make quantified generalisations on the livelihood impact and opportunities presented by the disaster.

Provides information background for flash appeal, early recovery donor conference and subsequent livelihoods programmes. Could be used to extrapolate from Flash appeals if QLIA is not possible.

Compilation done before the disaster. FAO/ILO/Country/ Other UN agencies/ National governments

Quick Livelihood Impact Assessment

Initial assessment of impact of disaster on livelihood at ‘local level’ - to be integrated into multi-sectoral quick impact assessments.

Flash appeal. Within first 10 days after disaster. FOA Emergency coordinators / FAO Reps and / or ILO Reps coordinated with OCHA.

Rapid Livelihood Assessment

Assessment of impact of disaster on livelihoods and opportunities and capacities for recovery at household, community and local economy levels.

Revised Flash appeal and / or Early Recovery donor conference.

Within 60 days of the disaster. Done by RLA team.

Livelihood Response Planning

Conversion of the results of assessments into concrete projects and programme profiles and strategies.

Flash appeal, Early Recovery donor conference, national government led livelihood recovery strategies.

FAO/ILO with UN HC and national governments.


Figure 3: Livelihood assessment and strategy process in response to sudden on-set disasters (FAO/ILO 2007)


The livelihood baseline assessment is recommended as a part of national disaster preparedness process. This should be used for areas at risk in order to facilitate a comprehensive needs assessment for response and recovery even under post-disaster stress conditions and limitations. Based on the livelihood approach, it recommends the collection of data on the following issues: areas at risk and hazard mapping, population, livelihood assets, institutions affecting livelihoods, household activities and employment and livelihood outcomes. It proposes formats for the collection of quantifiable as well as non-quantifiable data.

The quick livelihood impact assessment (QLIA) is to generate a credible and well justified image of the immediate post-disaster situation, as a basis for the Flash Appeal. It has been designed to allow for the initial process of putting people back on their feet through rapid rehabilitation and early recovery efforts. Therefore, in addition to the analysis of impact, it includes recovery elements, which lead to recovery recommendations. If possible it should be used for an early recovery plan. If field trips are not possible, the QLIA can be based entirely on the baseline data and additional impact information. The instrument may be used by FAO/ILO in coordination with the other UN agencies. The aspired key outputs related to recovery opportunities and needs respond to the following issues:

Probable role and effectiveness of markets, existing government and other programmes, •local institutions, and

High priority livelihood recovery interventions for affected population groups.•

The document presents examples and templates for an initial livelihood recovery plan and a flash appeal, and a list of typical effects of different types of natural disasters, based on WFP EFSA Handbook.

The rapid livelihood assessment (RLA) is the most complex of the three tools presented; its application should take about three to four weeks. Nevertheless, as it is introduced in early recovery conferences where the time-frame may be more limited, it can be adapted to cover a shorter period. It’s main objective is “to provide an assessment of impact of disaster on livelihoods and opportunities and capacities for recovery at household, community, and local economy levels”. Comparing it with other assessments implemented by other organizations in the same period, the RLA has a multi-sectoral approach, considering the full range of assets and looking beyond reconstructing what was there before and considering longer term structural interventions to reduce vulnerability and strengthen resilience. Two different types of RLA are presented: an “embedded” version which is realised especially on the basis of the baseline data and the quick impact assessment, and a “reactive” version to be applied in situations which did not allow for preparedness. The methodology establishes four phases, which lead to the output in form of an RLA report. This report should include, among other aspects, the current realities and people’s aspirations related to livelihood outcomes, the opportunities and capacities for response and response priorities. In order to identify key trends, the analysis differentiates between wealth groups. The RLA is recommended for use as a contribution to the governmental livelihood recovery strategy. It should thus help determine the vision of recovery as well as the necessary interventions for rehabilitation and exit strategies.


Figure 4: Template for collecting recovery information (FAO/ILO 2007)

Wealth group

Main source of livelihood

Key impact of disaster on assets

Coping strategies

Current outcomes

Priority needs Short-term

Priority needs

Long-term

LHZ1

Village 1 Better - off Remittance Milk sales Crop sales Agriculture

Human mortality Animal mortality Buildings destroyed Land/terraces damaged

Reliance on remittance Rebuilding from own resources Use own food stocks

Heavily traumatised but survival likely

Rebuild shelter before winter

Restock Land levelling Terrace repair

Poor NTFP Sales Migration Sale of own labour Livestock

Human mortality Animal mortality Buildings destroyed own labour incapacitated

Reliance on government handouts and neighbours charity Migration to camps for winter

Heavily traumatised survival tenuous

Food Rebuild shelter before winter

Livestock Migration support Skill enhancement NTFP marketing

Village 2etc.

LHZ 2

Village 1 ect.

The fourth instrument of the toolkit, the livelihood recovery planning, has not yet been finished and still has to be incorporated into the document.

Application experiences: The livelihood approach has been applied for years. Elements of the tools have been applied in several countries during the past few years by ILO or FAO. The guidelines are built on these experiences. The most recent application was in Bolivia after the February 2007 flooding and based on the current version. Nevertheless, as the guidelines still have the status of a working draft and the development is still in process, there has not yet been a complete application experience.

Strengths and challenges: The fundamental strength of the FAO/ILO livelihood assessment guidelines is its comprehensiveness in terms of the sectors and needs in the post-disaster time-line. Based on the livelihood approach, the instrument identifies long-term issues from the outset. Other advantages are its modular system and adaptability to different scenarios and possible constraints, the inclusion of both qualitative and quantitative information, the articulation of locally compiled data and processes with national level data and processes, and the orientation of tools towards concrete and partially known output formats (e.g. Flash Appeal).

In order to achieve broad acceptation and application of the tool kit, FAO/ILO is conscious of four main challenges: Firstly, trained expert groups have to be established in order to guide and implement the assessment process. Secondly, partners (UN system, governments and others) have to be trained and/or sensitised for cooperation and buy-in of the outcomes. This is especially


important as the livelihood assessment, as a holistic instrument, has to be complementary to more specific and detailed sectoral assessments (e.g. by WHO on the health system). Thirdly, quick release financial mechanisms should be available for rapid assessments upon request of the government. A fourth challenge is, the finalisation of the guidelines including the clarification of the sometimes incoherent use of the terminology concerning “response” and “recovery”. Continuing investment in the validation and adaptation of the guidelines also needs to be developed.

Lessons and inputs for PDNA: The livelihood approach has been promoted for years as a sound approach for holistic development and post-disaster response and recovery. The Livelihood Assessment Guidelines have been compiled to facilitate the broad application of this approach and is therefore a highly important input for the PDNA. It provides a sectoral input to the recovery process. The four tools will help build the case for addressing livelihood needs through the disaster and development time-line. The PDNA framework could help raising awareness and training UN and government staff and other stakeholders in this area through the assessment lens. It can provide – together with the UNDP recovery guidelines mentioned above– a common basis for interagency and multi-sectoral coordination and cooperation mechanisms at the national and international level.

f. Recovery Assessment mechanisms and methods of the IFRC (2005 onwards):

Background: The IFRC’s (International Federation of Red Cross) Recovery Assessment Team (RAT) was fielded for the first time in response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami. The agency focused assessment was designed to identify recovery needs of the affected in light of the RC (Red Cross) movement’s mandate. The recovery assessment was conducted in recognition of the need to develop recovery focused activities, which were distinct from but linked to the RC movement’s emergency relief and long-term preparedness and risk management activities.

Based on the lessons generated from the use of the RAT and the need for continuous assessments to guide changing needs across the disaster time line, the IFRC is currently developing a guidance note on recovery needs assessment. This note is designed for use in conjunction with the emergency needs assessment guidelines of the IFRC (developed in 2005 and being revised for a 2007 launch). For more information on the emergency assessment guidelines refer to section 2.1.2a (v) of this report.

Design, Content and Application: The focus of the IFRC with regards to the RAT was more on designing a system for mobilising a recovery assessment team than outlining a methodology for the assessment. Thus there was no distinct RAT methodology. The methodology and scope of each assessment was developed by the sector specific team members. Each team had a mix of RC

personnel from the affected country and some from regional and international RC societies. The assessment broadly covered the sectors of organizational development, health, housing, construction, water and sanitation, disaster management and livelihoods. Each team member covered one or more sectors and had distinct assessment budgets and plans. Lack of a consistent reporting format lead to multiple and inconsistent formats for different sectoral assessments by the RAT team.

All the RAT teams mobilized after the 2004 earthquake and tsunami (in Sri Lanka and Indonesia) and the 2006 Yogyakarta earthquake had different TORs, methods, time-lines and report


formats. This variation was based on the magnitude of disaster and the RC dynamics in each country. In some cases the team worked with the government to identify recovery data and needs through public consultations.

Case of the May 2006 Yogyakarta earthquake recovery needs assessment in Indonesia12: An RC movement specific joint early recovery needs assessment and action planning mission was undertaken within a few days of the earthquake. It involved the participation of Indonesian Red Cross (PMI), Federation Secretariat and Partner National Societies (PNS) including British RCS and German RCS. This partnership was seen to be important in assuring the success of the mission and in planning and conducting any subsequent early recovery activities. The mission team was comprised of individuals with a combination of technical recovery skills and experience (livelihoods, shelter, water & sanitation, disaster risk reduction, community participation and rural finance) and local knowledge. Most of the team had recent experience from the 2004 Aceh tsunami operation, which proved useful even though the recovery context for this disaster was different. In total, there were 3 women and 4 men on the team and 4 of the team members were Indonesians. The assessment mission’s objectives were to:

identify early recovery needs and gaps in the affected areas; a.

carry out detailed targeting of vulnerable groups and communities; b.

assess PMI’s capacity and interest in supporting any early recovery interventions c. identified;

map out current or planned PNS support for early recovery activities; and d.

draw up a manageable, cost-effective and realistic plan of action for early recovery e. activities and for capacity building support to PMI.

The assessment team leader arrived in Jakarta one day before the other members and assisted with drafting the extended emergency appeal. This helped raise resources to support approximately one year of early recovery activities. In addition to PMI staff and volunteers a team of graduate student researchers from the University of Gadja Mada (UGM) were trained and supported in rapid assessment and data processing. As most surveyors available at the time were men, focus groups were held in each district by female researchers with women to balance potential gender bias in the questionnaire results.

The team used a “progressive contextualization” approach to carry out a ‘rapid assessment of vulnerability and needs.’ The survey sample was too small to be statistically representative, but it provided a reasonable snapshot of the situation. Primary and secondary sources of information included: government statistics, poverty reduction/development plans; semi-structured and informal interviews with PMI, Government of Indonesia (GOI) and local NGOs; socioeconomic surveys of earthquake-affected people and local markets, using formal questionnaires, focus groups and direct observation; inter-agency meetings; PMI/IFRC/PNS relief needs assessments’ results, INGO/ GoI assessments; and consultation with PNS.

Sites for the socio-economic survey were selected by correlating data on affected areas having high pre-earthquake poverty levels, including the GoI-World Bank’s PRSP (Poverty Reduction

12 Source: IFRC. 2006. Linking Relief, Recovery and Risk Reduction: Needs Assessment in the International Federation’s Yogyakarta and Central Java Earthquake Response Operation.


Strategy Papers) reports, with emerging GoI data on areas experiencing the heaviest levels of post earthquake loss and damage. Consideration was also given to assistance of sub-districts by other national and or international organizations. Feedback was sought from beneficiaries on the appropriateness of relief being provided, through FGDs in randomly selected beneficiary communities. In one case, this led to identification of a food crop (chilies) that had survived the earthquake. Chilies were recommended to be removed from later distributions of food aid to avoid undermining local markets for this crop that was grown by many low income affected households. Discussions also were carried out with PMI at chapter, branch and national levels to support them in assessing their capacity and interest to participate in future possible early recovery activities.

While a FACT (Field Assessment and Coordination Team)13 team was not mobilized for this operation, the recovery assessment drew information from the RC’s Emergency Response Units concerning water and sanitation, health (including psycho social) and other organizations. Despite the IFRC’s Emergency Assessment Guidelines, different response units used different methodologies, making data correlation and comparative analysis difficult. While the team considered the use of Sphere standards, it did not use it, because of the difference of opinion regarding its interpretation by actors within the international cluster coordination process.

The assessment team leader also represented the IFRC as a Disaster Mitigation specialist on the GOI/IFI/UN preliminary DLA mission. Community feedback in the IFRC early recovery assessment report, especially data on psycho-social impacts was included in the DLA. The assessment findings helped the RC identify two sub-districts for recovery programming and its programme focus on building emergency/temporary shelter, in light of the upcoming rainy season. These programming decisions were based on the selection of the most vulnerable communities (poverty and damage based), the capacity of the RC movement to deliver assistance and the expressed need of the affected (through a series of assessment and post assessment consultations).

Strengths and challenges: The IFRC’s real time evaluation of the 2004 Asia earthquake and tsunami (March 2005) identified the RAT initiative and reports “helpful in shaping the RC’s response.” It was expressed that the:

RATs composition, timing (although earlier than the local delegations wanted) helped •resist the linear approach of disaster phases; RAT outreached to some of the remotest areas; •RAT discouraged IFRC’s partner national societies from acting in an uncoordinated, •unilateral way and gave the federation a better understanding of recovery needs and a better standing with donors and national authorities.

Nevertheless, the RAT like the FACT was criticised for:

being inward looking rather than capturing the larger recovery needs. For example, •the IFRC invested its energies in internal coordination at the cost of coordinating with the UN;

13 FACT team may be requested by a Red Cross member organization to support its emergency assessment and coordination function after a disaster. It consists of experienced RC disaster managers with expertise in relief, logistics, health, nutrition, pub-lic health and epidemiology, water and sanitation, finance, administration, psychological support and language. They receive a ten day training to become members of the team and are ready to be deployed with 12-24 hours notice for 2-4 weeks anywhere in the world.


not covering protection and coordination issues and shelter related needs in some •cases.

The evaluation called for strengthening the IFRC’s assessment and planning procedures and tools for more predictable and effective recovery operations. It also called for:

periodic needs and situation assessments after initial assessments (like the RAT) so as •to adjust recovery strategies; focus on community/people-focused response rather than infrastructure-oriented •response; strengthen the input of local expertise in the process; •consider the development of a roster of recovery expertise and conduct trainings for •recovery teams; introduce a position for a recovery specialists in RCS and IFRC who could work on •mainstreaming recovery in disaster preparedness and support assessment and programming needs after a disaster.

This evaluation helped inform the design of the 2006 Yogyakarta recovery assessment, which was a combination of physical and socio-economic vulnerability analysis (by using poverty data) and with the earthquake damage and loss data. It built a representative assessment team with local actors and capitalized on capacities of volunteers from local universities to conduct community assessments. It addressed the weakness of exclusively investing in agency focused assessments by its team member participating in the multi-sectoral DLA. Nevertheless, the challenge of overall assessment fatigue, unavailability of resources for all recovery needs beyond temporary shelter and inability to mainstream recovery aspects in emergency assessments remained.

Based on the experience with FACT and RAT, the IFRC’s current strategy for needs assessment is to discourage the approach of an external team from conducting assessments whether emergency or recovery. Instead it is investing in building local capacities of the RC movement to support an assessment process from emergency to recovery and beyond. This is based on the fact that most disasters are not large scale and thus do not qualify to benefit from international teams such as FACT and RAT. IFRC’s current plan is thus to develop its local RC membership’s capacity in three types of assessments:

rapid assessments a.

detailed assessments b.

continuous assessment c.

Each of the assessments will be guided by a three step plan of:

identify geographical area of focus (based on vulnerability-essentially poverty and i. disaster damage);

conduct surveys involving local actors including government, local universities etc; ii. and

mobilize self assessment of needs by communities to help priorities emergency, iii. recovery, rehabilitation needs.


They hope for the national societies be the custodian of all assessments with IFRC acting as a supportive partner. This capacity building process will include development of:

a. emergency and recovery focused guidance notes: These would be included in the revised version of the IFRC’s guidelines for emergency assessment. It would include tools related to the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of assessments and advise on integrating emergency concerns in recovery assessments and vice-versa.

b. training material and support for use of the guidelines: The FACT trainings will include components of recovery. Also, special trainings will be organized for local RC actors to conduct the range of recovery needs assessments.

At another level the IFRC is also working with external actors to:

develop community focused needs assessment tools, through the launch of a technical a. reference group (TRC) on social dimensions of post disaster assessments. This group will work with the ProVention Consortium to captures good practice of agencies, specially national and local agencies;

strengthen the social analysis component of the ECLAC methodology; b.

support the cluster working groups at the global level through development of c. mechanisms and tools for coordinated humanitarian action. This includes the development of the Initial Rapid Assessment (IRA) tool that is focused on slow onset disasters and food security needs;

IFRC is also working on linking its early recovery assessment process to the emergency d. response assessment process. The updated emergency needs assessment guidelines due to be released towards the end of 2007 will factor content related to relief assessments, recovery assessments and transition from relief to recovery.

Lessons and inputs for PDNA: The IFRC’s recovery mechanism and tools (including the draft guidance notes on recovery as a part of the Emergency Assessment Guidelines) reinforces the need for the PDNA to present assessments as a continuum in the disaster time line, rather than phase specific activities. Its focus on supporting RCs at the national level rather than fielding external teams like RAT should also inform the design and piloting of the PDNA. Its guidelines should inform the development of the PDNA guidelines. It’s ‘what’ and ‘how’ tools for community focussed assessments for recovery (both during and after the formal assessment) to make programme decisions it should also be integrated in or referred to in the PDNA guidelines. Its demonstrated use of poverty and development data to identify particularly vulnerable communities within the disaster affected community and other good practice examples like sending its recovery team leader to inform emergency appeal and in reconstruction oriented DLA should also inform the PDNA good practice and training material.


2.1.2 Recovery Relevant Assessment Methodologies and FrameworksThese assessments may not focus on recovery, however countering the linear phase approach to the disaster time-line; these assessments have consciously worked on linking recovery relevant needs in their design. This sub-section categorises these methods and tools into three broad groups based on their focus: emergency related; reconstruction related; and stocktaking, monitoring and evaluation related.

Please note that many of these methodologies and processes are currently being developed and have not been tested in the field. Nevertheless they have been included to get a perspective on the direction in which different recovery assessments actors are moving and designs emerging.

2.1.2.1 Emergency related:

a. Needs Analysis Framework guidelines and formats (2005):

Background: The Needs Analysis Framework (NAF) was developed by the IASC CAP Cluster Working Group and the UN OCHA, to ‘strengthen the analysis and presentation of humanitarian needs in the Consolidated Appeals Process.’ It serves as a blue print to help the UN Humanitarian Coordinators (HC) and IASC Country Teams consolidate ‘existing’ humanitarian needs assessment, identify gaps in information, and agree on whether to expand or repeat assessments. IASC country teams are expected to complete the NAF for either key regions or important population groups before drafting a Common Humanitarian Action Plan (CHAP). The NAF can then inform strategies, programmes and resource raising efforts for prioritized humanitarian needs. The HC supported by OCHA, encourages the link between NAF and other instruments which are used for monitoring and reporting of humanitarian action and other tools related to early recovery and development needs.

Design and Content: The NAF is designed to provide a coordinated snapshot of a disaster situation, primarily complex emergencies at a given time. In order to help national IASCs do that the NAF has prepared a guideline and some formats (for reporting and additional rapid needs assessments).

The guideline is a short document with a list of FAQs to help provide quick answers to some anticipated questions about the NAF. The following section explains what the NAF is and what it is not. It clarifies that the NAF is created from information that is already available and that the country teams may adapt and customize the NAF by removing or adding headings. It does not propose the use of specific assessment methodologies, the choice of which remains with individual agencies and related sectors.

The NAF model calls for a causal analysis of needs, that is a clear picture of needs and their causes so that resources could be prioritized for humanitarian action that may help address the cause. The NAF calls for compiling data and analyzing needs related to the following four categories (refer to figure 5):


a. Underlying factors (in green): Governance, demographics, economic context, socio-cultural context, environmental context.

b. Sector specific factors (in yellow): Water, sanitation and hygiene, nutrition, health, food security, education, shelter and protection.

c. Community vulnerability, coping strategies and capacities (in blue)

d. Outcomes (in orange): Life without dignity, excess morbidity and excess mortality.

Each of these categories and sub-categories identifies a set of guidelines, questions and indicators to help identify needs. Some indicators are drawn from the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Common Country Assessments (CCA). There are also recovery related questions in some sections. For example the environmental context section asks the question:

“Which natural resources will be in high demand to meet recovery needs? What is the availability of these resources to meet future demands? What is the likelihood that future demands can be sustained without creating new sources of vulnerability in the short and medium terms (e.g. soil erosion, flooding, landslides, drought, water quantity/quality impacts)? If not, what is the risk for human displacement or conflict?”

The annex to the guidelines provides additional clarifications, indicators and descriptors, writing tips and references to relevant guidelines and standards including the Sphere handbook. The NAF is updated on a regular basis, based on inputs from its users like governments, NGOs, individuals etc. The latest versions are posted on the OCHA website.14

In addition to the guidelines and based on the application of the NAF, the IASC in Uganda has produced a format for conducting Rapid Needs Assessment of Critical Needs (RACN) and compiling the RACN report. This was designed for use in areas where there was no assessment in the last six months and or areas where there were unaddressed critical needs. It could be used by rapid assessment teams in different locations to capture preliminary information about the humanitarian situation. It includes advisory on when to complete the assessment and who to share it with etc. It consists of two broad areas – introduction, general context and

14 Latest version of the NAF refer to: http://ochaonline.un.org/humanitarianappeal/webpage.asp?MenuID=9199&Page=1480

Figure 5: Needs Analysis Framework Model (OCHA 2007)


humanitarian sector needs – and identifies minimum information required for each area.

The RACN report format includes a one page Integrated Plan of Action (IPA) format which is to be submitted with the assessment report. The IPA tool will help provide:

snapshot of the assessment sector and area related problems, priority actions, human and a. material resource, requirements, responsible actors, time frame and related observations; and

build cross sectoral linkages to satisfy emergency needs. b.

The IASC has also initiated a project on building a ‘Rapid NAF’ that can be used in the context of sudden onset disasters and emergencies. It is also working on developing an inter-cluster Rapid Assessment tool.

Application experience: Since 2005, the NAF has been piloted in five countries Burundi, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, occupied Palestinian territory and Uganda. At the country level, the NAF was housed in the IASC with OCHA acting as the convener. Local NAFs have been produced by these countries through a long process of dialogue, implementation planning and workshops coordinated by national governments and the IASC. While countries like the DRC used NAF as a basis to conduct field assessments the occupied Palestinian territory used it to analyse needs based on different existing assessments. The DRC experience revealed that, the use of NAF as an assessment tool was time and resource intensive.

After the NAF pilot, a study was commissioned by the IASC CAP sub-working group to seek comments from users for improving NAF. The findings called for building the training aspect of NAF; and building ownership of and support from senior management at field level (HC, heads of UN agencies) and actors like the RC movement and other NGOs. This led to revisions of the 2005 NAF version and the production of the 2007 version. Various UN agencies contributed to this revision, for example FAO/WFP that provided a new version for the food security section. The application of NAF has also led to the production of additional tools (assessment and reporting formats) to priorities critical needs at the country level. For example, the Rapid Assessment of Critical Needs (RACN) tool in Uganda. The OCHA in cooperation with the IASC plans to deploy the tool to all CAP countries.

Strengths and challenges: As a framework it is brief, crisp and user-friendly in its design and content. It consists of FAQs, sector specific assessment analysis guidelines and indicators and formats for capturing and analysing assessment findings. Its focus on causal analysis of needs and inclusion of MDG indicators is a noteworthy effort towards mainstreaming DRR and development in emergency response. It has also included recovery related questions in some sections. Inclusion of guidelines for capturing the affected community’s vulnerability, coping strategies and capacities in a distinct category helps operationalize the good practices around community based and focussed assessments.

Its delivery to the countries through a systematic effort to create a buy-in nationally and contextualize it to the local needs is a major strength. OCHA has worked with national IASC teams to produce NAF implementations plans which are marked by a series of presentations, dialogues, workshops and trainings. The development of contextual formats for assessments and reporting like the RACN and the IPA by countries is not only a means for contextualizing the framework, but also in further developing tools for its use.


One of the key challenges that the NAF faces is its coverage of sectors as opposed to clusters in accordance to the humanitarian reform process. This causes ambiguity at the national level that receives mixed messages on humanitarian coordination. Another functional challenge relates to maintaining and building human capacity within OCHA to sustain the effort at the global and national level. This is specially related to training for NAF that is challenged by the high turnover of global and national staff. Also as an IASC tool, the process needs to strengthen the participation of Red Cross movements, NGOs and other actors who are important parts of the emergency and development landscape in disaster affected countries.

Inputs and lessons for PDNA: Although the NAF is focussed on humanitarian response in complex emergency and is not an assessment tool, it is a creative model to analyse needs of the affected after a disaster. It is based on the reality in humanitarian response, which like recovery response is marked by different actors conducting different assessments using different methods. This trend of using different assessment methods will only be strengthened by the emergence of different emergency and recovery assessment methods being produced by different actors. Like the NAF, the PDNA’s contribution in providing a coordinated analysis of recovery needs is key to coordinated recovery action.

The PDNA framework developers could study the NAF model for developing a similar set of guidelines and tools to help coordinate recovery action. This could include guidelines for composite analysis of recovery needs; formats for conducting rapid recovery needs assessments in local areas in lines of the RACN; format for collating and analyzing findings of recovery needs assessments conducted by different actors and format for producing a recovery framework in lines of the IPA. They should also study its design, development and institutionalisation strategy for lessons. For example, one lesson is to build a strong training element in the framework implementation process. This will help with its contextualization and timely and coordinated use at the national level. The NAF tools like Rapid Assessments Critical Needs and the Integrated Plan of Action can be used to develop recovery related formats in areas where assessment gaps are identified and or where stakeholders do not have existing tools for multi-sectoral recovery assessment. The PDNA design should also factor linkages with instruments like NAF in countries where these have been used especially as the NAF covers various recovery related questions.

b. Multi-sectoral Rapid Assessment (MRA) methodology of UNICEF (2006):

Background: UNICEF is developing a multi-sectoral rapid assessment (MRA) tool as a part of the IASC clusters working group. This product is intended as a common reference for an efficient, coordinated and effective interagency rapid assessment within the first 72 hours after a rapid onset disaster. While the draft is designed by UNICEF given its experience with emergency needs assessments, it will be opened for inputs from other UN and non UN agencies.

Content, Design and Application: The MRA is projected as the first field level, multi-sectoral cross-sectoral assessment, which should be used in the first 72 hours following a rapid onset crisis. It is seen as a rapid tool that must be followed by other more in-depth data collection exercises including sector-specific rapid assessments after the first week and multi-sectoral surveys yielding solid statistical data later. It calls for the use of MRA findings for analysis of needs through the UN Needs Analysis Framework (NAF) for the Consolidated Appeal Process (CAP), thus linking it to inter-agency emerging needs assessment processes. The MRA tool provides guidelines including a sampling approach to help interagency partners work together


quickly and easily and meet agreed standards of data collection and analysis.

It maps out data collection at the macro, meso and micro levels and explains how these could be brought together to provide the best possible overview in the time available. It identifies data collection as a preparedness activity, and proposes mechanisms for combining pre-disaster data with new data collected in the crisis from primary (including field surveys) and secondary sources. It is designed to take advantage of DevInfo, the cross-sectoral data-base which is now used by the UN as the platform for MDG monitoring and is increasingly in place in many countries. It also encourages the use of the MRA for interagency emergency assessment and monitoring activities. The MRA has been developed with reference to existing rapid assessment standards, manuals and tools including the Sphere Handbook, the United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination (UNDAC) handbook and agency specific manuals.

The FAQ format of the tool makes it user-friendly. Some of the questions it addresses are: what is the purpose of MRA, when is it carried out, who carries it out, what are the resources required etc. It also provided a step by step description for conducting the MRA and equips the user with a set of checklists and formats for capturing emergency needs and capacities. This tool has not been applied in the field and UNICEF continues to use its Rapid Assessment Information Needs Matrix (RAINM) after any disaster. This RAINM is based on UNICEF’s Core Corporate Commitment (CCC) and is also to be used within 72 hours of an emergency. The RAINM however focuses on identifying action areas for UNICEF alone.

Strengths and Challenges: The UNICEF’s strategy of first producing an MRA draft based on its knowledge of emergency needs and sectors and then opening it for integration of other sectors is a realistic plan for designing such a methodology. The methodology’s key strength includes its user-friendly and crisp presentation of the scope, use and limitations of the MRA with the help of FAQs. It has built the tool on the foundation of existing standards and tools for emergency assessments like the Sphere and UNDAC etc. Its focus on providing guidance for not only conducting the assessment, but planning it with partners in a step by step mode is also useful to help guide an assessment team. Its cognizance of the recent developments in the humanitarian sector and its integration with the MRA process for example calling for links with the NAF and the DevInfo which is being used to monitor the progress of the MDGs is a good means of linking emergency and recovery needs and disasters and development respectively. Its focus on preparedness work, by including checklist on sources of baseline data at national and sub-national level, capacities inventory and using OCHA’s the 3W (who, what, where) tool is also useful for timely recovery assessments.

The challenge is that it does not acknowledge the need to link up with assessments that go beyond emergency. Nevertheless, there is much potential to identify linkages with the PDNA.

Lessons and inputs for PDNA: UNICEF’s strategy of developing the MRA draft tool in-house by first capturing the existing knowledge base and emergency focus of the UNICEF, and then opening it for contributions from other agencies is a sound approach for developing a tool timely and in a multi-stakeholder context. The PDNA too, as a part of its package of tools, should begin with designing a rapid assessment tool on recovery that captures the UNDP’s understanding of recovery needs and then share it with other agencies to cover details on recovery relevant sectors. Also the FAQ format in which the features and limitations of the MRA have been captured should be used by the PDNA for utility and consistency with the MRA and other inter-agency tools. The PDNA should also develop recovery related preparedness tools


like checklists for capacity assessment and lists of baseline data sets at the national and sub-national levels. Adding recovery relevant questions in the MRA and the potential interface with DevInfo could be explored by the PDNA. Formal linkages with tools like the MRA and the NAF should also be worked towards in partnership with the UNICEF and OCHA respectively.

c. IFRC’s Guidelines for Emergency Assessment (2005):

Background: The IFRC revised its guidelines for emergency needs assessments in October 2005. The guidelines have been developed for International Red Cross and Red Crescent movement personnel and generalists who may be involved in the emergency assessment cycle. It is a ‘how to’ guide for conducting assessments.

These guidelines are being currently revised in response to the lessons that the IFRC learnt in recent disasters, especially the need to collect preliminary recovery needs information as a part of emergency assessments. The revised guidelines will be released as Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement wide (including the ICRC) guidelines by the end of 2007. Its emphasis will be on relief and recovery assessments, including a focus on relief to recovery transitions. It will also include a short second book on ‘what to’ cover during assessments including economic security issues.

Design and Content: The 2005 version of the guidelines covers “how to conduct” more than the “what to cover” during assessments. Its focus is on community assessment techniques, which have been extracted from the IFRC’s Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (VCA) guidelines. The VCA is typically designed for disaster preparedness and slow onset disaster contexts, when disaster actors have time to engage the community more deeply.15

The guidelines provide a clear and systematic presentation of the emergency assessment process, from planning to field work, analysis and reporting. The process also proposes three types of assessments as the disaster time-line progresses: rapid, detailed and continual assessment. Its FAQ format makes it user friendly. Some questions include: why assessments, who are the guidelines for, key concepts in assessments, how to plan an assessment, assessment team structures, office based tasks related to assessments, what does field work involve (principles, activities and tips), what are the steps in analyzing the information and producing an assessment report etc. The guide also includes formats for rapid and detailed assessment reports.

This simple and visual design of the assessment tools and process has been consciously designed to help its use by RC volunteers in the field (refer to figure 6 and 7). It also ensures easy translation in local languages. The current version is available in six languages and training modules are being developed for volunteers and field staff.

Application: The emergency guidelines have been used during various small and large scale disaster events. These have been used by various emergency response teams drawn from the national RCS, government and FACT teams. These have been used with an eye to develop emergency programs of the RC movement. The application has involved review of past vulnerability data, including national reports, the World Bank’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP) and the recent disaster hotspots report. Nevertheless, despite the existence of these standard guidelines, different response teams have used different methodologies, making

15 For the VCA toolbox refer to: http://www.proventionconsortium.org/themes/default/pdfs/CRA/VCA1996.pdf. This toolbox includes a conceptual framework, practical guidelines and a set of tools for conducting a VCA at the community level.


Figure 6: Assessment Cycle (IFRC 2005)

Figure 7: Vulnerability and Capacity Flowchart (IFRC 2005)


data correlation and comparative analysis challenging. This includes its most recent application after the Yogyakarta earthquake in 2006.

Strengths and Challenges: The strength of the 2005 guidelines is its simple design, with visual aids (flow charts, cycles, tables etc.) explaining processes, step by step guidance on planning, conducting and using the findings of the assessment for designing RC government programs. Its focus on community assessments that consciously identify needs relevant to the affected communities vulnerability and capacity is crucial for local capacity building and risk reduction. The inclusion of formats for reporting is also useful for collating findings of different assessment teams. The frequent revision of the guidelines in response to lessons from its application is another major strength. In addition to this, designing relevant training tools to help build capacity of assessment teams –generalists and specialists– has helped the IFRC build a comprehensive package. Further, the presentation of the tool in a spiral bound palm size document has made it easy for field teams to carry it during assessments.

Challenges include limited scope of the assessment needs, which is based on the supply capacity of the RC movement. It is also critiqued as an inward looking rather than an inter-agency/sectoral tool for the assessment of needs. In terms of its use there have been challenges in ensuring the use of standard tools by different emergency response teams (especially sector specific) of the RC movement. Thus, despite the standard assessment methodology the findings of different units have not been comparable, limiting inter-sectoral programming.

Lessons and inputs for PDNA: The simple design, visual tools, formats and checklists and process approach (rapid, detailed and continuous) to emergency assessment can be used as important features for the design of a recovery assessment process by the PDNA. Also the approach to constantly update the guidelines based on application experiences should be factored in the pilot and plan of institutionalizing the PDNA.

d. REDLAC Rapid Assessment for Humanitarian Assistance (2006):

Background: The REDLAC methodology of Rapid Assessment for Humanitarian Assistance has been developed by the group’s members with the objective to facilitate “joint and integrated disaster response projects, maximising the use of existing resources and focusing assistance on the humanitarian conditions of the affected”. Permanent members of REDLAC16 are the UN Organizations OCHA (leadership), WFP, PAHO, UNDP-BCPR, UNICEF, UNEP and ISDR, IFRC as well as the international NGOs like OXFAM, CARE and Plan International. Stakeholders like ECHO, ECLAC, OFDA, government entities from LAC are collaborating in this effort. REDLAC was founded in 2005 as a regional IASC group with five sub-groups on logistics (coordinated by WFP), information management (OCHA), disaster risk reduction (ISDR), recovery (UNDP) and preparedness and response (OCHA). The group meets weekly and fosters, among other things, the creation of national humanitarian platforms in the region. In the context of the sub-group on preparation and response the group has established a matrix to help UN Agencies to be better prepared for natural disasters.17 In this context the methodology on Rapid Assessment has been developed in order to facilitate the elaboration of a post-disaster Flash Appeal. The final version of the methodology was presented in December 2006.

16 Work Group on Risk, Emergency and Disaster of the Interagency Standing Committee fort he American and Caribbean region.17 OCHA (2007): Matriz de preparación para las Agencias de las Naciones Unidas, draft versión.


Design and Content: The methodology is focused on response and only contains a few references to recovery needs. Most partners agree with the need to strengthen recovery aspects in the methodology. The rapid assessment tool is designed for rapid use after the event to give a general overview of the situation. It is designed to be complementary and supportive of more specialised instruments for detailed assessments by the REDLAC members and other actors. It can be applied a few weeks into the disaster, too, but must be implemented in a humanitarian context. The methodology has been developed on the basis of a review of existing methods.18 Nevertheless, it only aims to capture the most essential aspects of a general overview based on the cluster system and does not aim to replace its member’s existing and more specific tools. It has been developed for the UN Emergency teams (UNETT) that currently exist in 16 Latin American and Caribbean countries, but may be used by other actors too.

The methodology is especially useful for application at the municipal level using data that can be obtained from the municipality records or from research by local NGO staff. Nevertheless, it is sufficiently flexible to be used at other levels. It does not call for the collection of pre-disaster baseline data, considering such information a responsibility of the national government.

The REDLAC methodology document is divided into three main sections:

The i. first section consists of a general introduction to analyzing the impact of a disaster on a social system. This is useful for training.

The ii. second section describes the methodology for the rapid humanitarian assistance, including objectives, the composition of teams, the process, communication and diffusion of its results. This is useful for training

The iii. third section corresponds to the design and use of the four tools available for carrying out a rapid humanitarian assessment. This is useful for field work.

The methodology has an integrated focus, covering the basic humanitarian needs in the areas of health, water, food, shelter, livelihood and protection. Considering the different levels of vulnerabilities existing in a disaster situation, the methodology prioritizes to satisfy the needs of the most vulnerable groups.

To obtain the information required, the methodology proposes the use of four instruments that may be used together, complementarily or separately, depending on the context. They are all based on the same set of indicators19 but differ in the manner of collection and presentation of the data:

i. Criteria for rapid assessments: this tool establishes the main variables and their objectives facilitating adjustments according to the situation and allowing an assessment even if the information is scarce.

ii. Questionnaire guide: the guide can stand alone as a detailed guide for interviews or team discussion; nevertheless it can also be used for interviews in combination with the

18 REDLAC (2006): Inventario de herramientas e instrumentos para la Evaluación rápida en eventos adversos. The review presents thirteen tools for rapid humanitarian assessments including the PMA Emergency Food Security Assessment Handbook, Oxfam rapid assessment tool, WHO/PAHO manual for damage assessment and health related needs evaluation for disaster situations and others.

19 The indicators are attributed to the following headings: General situation of the population, Geographic situation, Water, Health situation, Basic and environmental sanitation, Food and nutrition, Protection, Shelters, Livelihood, Education, and Organization and coordination.


rapid assessment format providing instructions on collected information in a standard format.

iii. Short checklist: this one-page checklist is a reference (memory aid) for interviews or for writing reports. It can be supplemented with additional information.

iv. Rapid assessment form: this form has been designed to help consolidation of the information from different working areas or interviews to help draw conclusions and recommendations concerning each working area.

The last chapter presents the two report formats recommended for Situation Reports (OCHA) and Flash Appeal (IASC). The indicator set focuses on the current humanitarian situation and needs. The indicators sampled under the livelihood heading include recovery related aspects such as recovery strategies and their effect on reducing vulnerability, community organization for recovery and areas with high vulnerability to future events.

Application: Up to now there have been two (partial) application experiences The Panama Civil Protection System (SINAPROC) used after the 2006 inundations and expressed its satisfaction with the results. It was also introduced in the Santa Cruz department during the Bolivia floods in 2007 and used by UNETT and the Civil Defence. This application was limited to the initial phase and could not be broadened to other affected areas when the emergency situation spread to other regions and the UN agencies concentrated on supporting the different ministries in Bolivia. Both application experiences have shown that good training is needed to assure efficient and qualitative data collection. Many NGOs have applied these tools and trained its staff.

The methodology has recently be sent by OCHA to the UN Resident Coordinators in the LAC. However, the REDLAC members and related agencies insist on seeing it as a supplement methodology to help fill gaps, rather than to replace validated assessment tools. The REDLAC members have agreed to spread the methodology in their respective organizations and have planned training is for UNETT, in Panama, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic and one South American country in 2007.

Strengths and challenges: The main strength of the instrument is the joint development and ownership of the tool by REDLAC members. It provides an integrated vision of the humanitarian needs and facilitates coordination and information exchange between the involved stakeholders, including the government. It is based on validated tools and is therefore considered a useful instrument for UNETT and other actors that lack an appropriate methodology for Rapid Response Needs Assessments. The tools are easy to apply and seem to appropriately complement OFDA/EDAN and UNDAC methodologies on the one hand and more specific assessments on the other. The versatility of the tools allows the use of different combinations according to the context as well as its use for monitoring the process through successive applications. The tools can also be adapted to the particularities of the situation and the affected area.

Its applicability and utility, nevertheless, still has to be proved in future disaster situations. The assessment is focused on response, but recovery aspects can and should be integrated in each sector and tool. It’s strength can also become a weakness: too heavy in form and content for the one and too general for the other. Its acceptance in the region depends on the question whether, after training and first experiences, UNETT and/or others actors consider it commentary to existing assessments or a redundant tool.


Lessons and inputs for PDNA: The REDLAC methodology is a very good example for coordination and joint assessments by different stakeholders involved in post-disaster situations (UN, governments, NGO, donor organizations, IFRC etc.). Even if the development of the methodology has sometimes been a difficult process, and despite its pending diffusion and its validation in further disaster situations, it has already improved the exchange between the disaster stakeholders. It provides a very relevant input for the establishment of assessments at the national level (governments and UN system and NGOs). Having been tested at the regional level, the process can provide some important lessons and recommendations for the PDNA process. As the REDLAC members are open to adapting the tool the PDNA could provide them technical input for mainstreaming recovery needs in the emergency assessment process.

e. Community based disaster loss and needs assessment (TISS, 2005):

Background: In response to the 2005 South Asia earthquake in India and the 2004 tsunami, the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) worked with the affected state governments in India to conduct initial disaster loss and needs assessments. The TISS – a national social work education and research institute in India – capitalised on the strength of its students and research teams to organise these community based assessments. It has been using and incrementally developing this assessment method since 1990s. It has conducted several such assessments for and in partnership with local governments in urban and rural parts of India after earthquakes, floods, riots, cyclones, tsunami and droughts.

Content, Design and Application: This community based loss and needs assessment is conducted in partnership with a local NGO (primarily Action Aid), local educational institutions and in support of the state government. The assessment is conducted rapidly after a disaster and is thus focussed on emergency needs, identifying only preliminary recovery relevant needs. It captures data on loss of lives, property, livelihoods, environment and infrastructure; rehabilitation and development needs; and psychosocial needs of affected women and children. A system for conducting these assessments has been defined and refined with every progressing assessment exercise. At this stage it includes household level assessments. The assessment involves the following steps:

setting up an assessment steering committee with one or more local educational a. institutions, government authorities and development organizations; conducting training of trainers (TOTs) for assessment teams; b. conducting a rapid impact assessment survey;c. conducting a household field survey d. data entry and analysise.

This process culminates in a report that captures the impact of the disaster on households; the nature and adequacy of relief provided to affected families; the unfulfilled needs and rights of the affected people and recommendations regarding the nature and extent of rehabilitation support required.

The tsunami assessment in the state of Tamil Nadu was conducted from December 2004 to January 2005. It covered about 100,000 families in 279 villages spread over 11 tsunami-affected districts. It was done in collaboration with 29 colleges of social work in Tamil Nadu, involving about 1,500 post-graduate student volunteers and over 100 teachers. The team provided village-specific reports and data, to government and non-government agencies engaged in recovery


and reconstruction work. The assessment in the state of Kashmir after the 2005 earthquake was conducted at the household level. It was conducted in partnership with the University of Kashmir and the NGO Action Aid. Similar assessments were carried out after the Mumbai urban floods (2005), Gujarat earthquake (2001) and Orissa cyclone (1999).

Strengths and Challenges: The strength of this tool is its coverage of the affected at the household and family level immediately after a disaster. This method also helps save resources (time and money) as it involves university students from the affected areas. TOTs are organized to help build their capacity for the assessment. Involving students and local universities also sensitizing them to disaster risk management concerns in the process and helps with monitoring initiatives, typically one year after reports based on the findings of the initial assessment.

One of the key challenges of this method is that the methodology is not documented in a separate document and is only available in different assessment reports. Another challenge is adequately training the assessment team members a majority of whom are students with limited experience and understanding of the complex social impacts and needs after disasters. Also as the assessment is conduced immediately after a disaster it does not always cover recovery needs. The reports are often descriptive rather than quantitative in the identification of needs and existing resources.

Lessons and inputs for PDNA: The community assessment model used by the TISS may be reviewed by the PDNA to develop guidelines for community level assessments. The components of the TISS methodology, like household level assessment approach, involvement of local university students in the assessment team, ToT for assessment team and developing standardized data entry and analysis methods could be referred to as good practice resources in the PDNA.

f. Community Damage Assessment and Demand Analysis methodology (2005):

Background: The Community Damage Assessment and Demand Analysis (CDADA) methodology is based on lessons from previous post-disaster damage assessment practices of All India Disaster Mitigation Institute (AIDMI). AIDMI is a community based action research and action-planning organization that aims to bridge the gap between policy, practice and research from the community level to the national level in India and more recently in Asia. The methodology is based on AIDMI’s belief that locally designed and conducted post-disaster damage assessments prove to be the most realistic and holistic. This method was documented as a part of the AIDMI’s Experience Learning Series 33. While the AIDMI has used this methodology informally during various disasters in India, specially the 2001 Gujarat earthquake, 2003 Mumbai floods and other disasters, this method had not been systematically documented till 2005.

Design and Content: It is a multi-sectoral and multi-method assessment tool. The CDADA method is designed for use by local NGOs (small and large), CBOs and government departments that work with local organizations. The primary objective of the CDADA is to provide a clear and concise picture of the post disaster situation, to identify relief needs and to develop strategies for recovery. This method was designed to address the “deliberate or unconscious neglect of local coping capacities and stifling the voices of those affected by disaster that are common during assessments.” It includes a simple series of activities to be undertaken across the disaster time line, essentially related to emergency. It calls for collection of damage and needs data from local actors including the affected communities, CBOs, and government authorities. Expert opinions


and suggestions in specific sectors are also included.

The assessment covers two key components: i.

Situation assessment or damage assessment, which describes what has happened, ii. and

Need assessment and analysis, which clarifies the basic question of what needs to be iii. done

The first chapter builds the case for a community-based needs analysis. The second chapter addresses common challenges relevant to gathering correct and pertinent information for disaster relief and rehabilitation. It also gives recommendations for constituting an analysis team and details the assessment process. Chapter 3 suggests the need for a post-disaster assessment process, with four assessment report formats for four different phases as the disaster time line progresses. It includes formats for a) Flash report; b) Initial report; c) Interim report and d) Final report. These formats cover situation and needs in the area of search and rescue, evacuation, protection, medical and health, shelter and clothing, food and nutrition (including cooking utensils and cooking fuel), water, sanitation, livelihood, lifeline systems (communications, power supplies, transport etc.). The methodology also provides formats for, quantifying needs, identifying unmet needs and required interventions, inventory of resources and the communities’ response to humanitarian agency action (evaluation of the latter’s work).

Chapter 4 makes suggestions relevant to standardizing information systems for decision makers to be help them act quickly. Chapters 5 and 6 discuss the Sphere Project’s Minimum Standards in Disaster Response and the Red Cross’s Humanitarian Charter. A checklist is provided to guide community need analysis. This chapter provides guidelines for the sectors water and sanitation, food security and food aid, shelter and site planning and health services. The annex includes suggested formats for compiling reports addressed to government authorities and the media. It also provides advice on compiling a community resource inventory and provides a list of common needs in the context of disaster management in India.

Application: The methodology has been used in India to capture needs after the 2001 Gujarat earthquake 2003 Gujarat riots and annual floods in the state of Gujarat. Its use was limited after the 2004 tsunami and the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan. This was because the AIDMI team had limited capacity to train local organizations in the use of this methodology. Thus, AIDMI relied on informal assessment by local NGO counterparts to plan its response and recovery action. Also, as AIDMI had already raised resources from donors like the DFID, American World Jewish Service etc., the need for formal assessments and reports using the above methodology was not felt.

Strengths and challenges: The CDADA’s strength is in its simple design and its step by step guidance in planning the assessment, conducting it, capturing findings and disseminating it to strategic stakeholders including the government and the media. Its emphasis on both the assessment process and product to influence humanitarian action is also well captured. Its focus on placing the affected communities at the centre of disaster response, by capturing their needs, demands and capacities in recovering from a disaster is also crucial. It also proposes multiple assessments (flash, initial, interim and final) and reports in response to the changing needs of communities across the disaster time line. It includes various useful and crisp formats for reporting, quantifying needs, identifying unmet needs, required interventions, resources


and community’s evaluation of humanitarian response. A checklist for working with the media on assessments is also included.

A challenge however is that this assessment is primarily focused on emergency needs. Also, its use, like the use of any formal methodology is challenging for small local organizations who have limited resources and multiple demands to address after a disaster. For example, after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, the AIDMI India relied on informal assessment of needs and their local partners ability to meet these needs, rather than conducting formal assessment using this CDADA method.

Lessons and inputs for PDNA: The structure and design of the CDADA could be used to inform the design of a recovery relevant community focussed rapid PDNA tool. This will however need adaptation as the CDADA is focussed on primarily emergency needs. The CDAD method’s focus on the two key components of the assessments – situational context and needs – could guide the design of the PDNA assessment framework.

The presentation of assessment as a process with multiple progressive reports and associated formats (including flash report, initial report; interim report and final report) could be used to design reporting formats for the PDNA guide. Formats for quantifying needs, identifying unmet needs and required interventions, inventory of resources and communities response to humanitarian agency action (evaluation of the latter’s work) could also be contextualized and included as a set of supportive tools for the assessment team. The PDNA guide could also include guidance related to preparing a report: for example, the writer should ask “what do the recipients of this document need to know in order to meet their responsibilities and to make the

Figure 8: Assessment Process

Identity information needs

and resources

Data collection from various levels

Analysis and interpretation of

data

Report conclusion and

decision making

Information ‘out’

Design/modify disaster

response

Source: Community Damage and Demand Analysis (AIDMI 2005)


right decision?” Guidance on working with the media in both conducting and disseminating the assessment findings should also be included. This is especially relevant for recovery as the media’s coverage of the disaster begins to dwindle as one moved farther from the event.

g. Damage Assessment and Needs Analysis Methodology by ADPC (2000):

Background: The Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre (ADPC) has been working with disaster affected countries and communities in Asia since 1980s. It has considerable experience in disaster reduction capacity building and in implementing innovative field interventions related to recovery and reconstruction. From 1999 to 2002, ADPC worked with the USAID to review and consolidate a methodology for Damage Assessment and Needs Analysis (DANA).

Content, Design and Application: The aim of the DANA is to develop a standard methodology and protocols, appropriate to the needs of disaster managers in countries in Asia, for assessing and reporting post-disaster damage and needs. Its focus is on identifying relief needs. This methodology was designed by studying and harmonizing emergency assessment formats being used in different countries in Asia.

The DANA tool in its draft stage provides a framework for planning, collecting damage and needs assessment data and processing this information into user-friendly reports. It clarifies that two kinds of simultaneous assessments need to be planned and reported:

i. Situation (damage) Assessment: a description of what has happened and

ii. Needs Assessment: a statement of what needs to be done.

It includes formats for reporting and checklists for identifying common priority needs after a disaster covering the sectors of protection, medical and health, shelter, food, water, sanitation and lifeline systems (communications, power supplies, transport, etc). The AIDMI’s CDADA methodology also draws on this method (for details refer to subsection 2.1.1 f).

Following the harmonizing process a contextualization and capacity building process was initiated in the year 2001 onwards by conducting national workshops in Vietnam, Philippines, Bangladesh and Thailand. The national DANA workshops in these countries were primarily for national government officers. These workshops took the form of forums for consultation with stakeholders, contextualizing the tool to national needs and conducting training on conducting assessments. Based on these workshops countries like Vietnam have developed their own national DANA (refer to subsection 2.1.1b).

Strengths and Challenges: The DANA is a concise tool for damage assessment and needs analysis that is based on the work of various countries in Asia. In its present shape, it can be contextualized for any country through the mechanism of consultative DANA workshops by the ADPC. Its strategy of building national capacity in the use of DANA through trainings (modules and events) for national officers is an important element in institutionalizing this method.

However, in its current form it is focused on emergency needs assessment alone. Its national adaptations on the other hand, like the DANA in Vietnam, have developed guidelines and formats for assessments across the disaster time line from emergency to post disaster response, recovery and reconstruction. It may benefit from extending its application beyond a one time assessment exercise to a tool for ongoing assessments. Further, it has not been updated (2000


version) after recent disaster assessments experiences in Asia, in many of which the ADPC also participated.

Lessons and inputs for PDNA: Although the methodology and training module for DANA is focused on emergency needs, it can be contextualized for use in recovery and in lines with the PDNA framework. The ADPC’s experience with the DANA and its strength in conducting trainings and workshops for contextualizing and building capacities of national actors in the use of this methodology could be used by the PDNA.

h. USAID - OFDA Evaluation of damages and analysis of needs - Evaluación de daños y análisis de necesidades, EDAN (1995 onwards):

Background: The methodology was developed in 1995 by OFDA for Latin American governments and other humanitarian stakeholders with the objective to provide the essential capacities and tools necessary for an immediate and adequate response to the emergency.

Design and Content: The methodology is designed for a general (multi-sectoral) initial assessment and is to be complemented by sector specific and more detailed assessments by other (sectoral) actors. It differentiates between a preliminary assessment that permits a broad appreciation of the impact of the event on a community as well as the identification of the priority needs, during the first eight hours. A second, complementary evaluation should is proposed within the first 72 hours, providing more details on the impacts especially on health, lifelines, housing and public infrastructure. This complementary evaluation calls for identification of rehabilitation needs.

The methodology package calls for training, which has been adapted and updated since its first application in 1995. It can be combined with other training elements, depending on the specific needs of the participants or organizations. For example, it may be combined with preparedness skill enhancement or with sector specific assessment methods. Over the years two different trainings have been developed, one for local staff to apply the formats directly after the disaster, and another for decision-makers. This training puts at the disposal of the participants an understanding of the collected data and guidelines for an effective and appropriate use of the results.

In order to facilitate the application of EDAN methodology and formats, several manuals have been developed, especially the field handbook (manual de campo). This handbook covers the characteristics of the different natural hazards (including drought) and lists the typical post-disaster needs in each. The document then provides guidelines and formats for the organization of the evaluation, the techniques for data collection and its interpretation. It explains how to elaborate reports and make decisions for further action. Finally, it describes the use of census and maps. It is clearly focused on emergency response, while still stressing on recovery related aspects from the beginning.

Application experiences: Since 1995 the methodology has been disseminated very widely among humanitarian actors in Latin America, though a series of capacity building measures. As a result, in Latin America most Civil Protection as well as other organizations refer to the EDAN methodology and adapt it to their own needs. While a broad range of experiences exist, these have not been systematically documented.


Strengths and challenges: The EDAN handbook is widely known in Latin America. It provides the basis for minimal initial assessments standards in many countries. Over the years the EDAN has been integrated in more comprehensive training for preparedness and sector specific disaster approaches For example, in health trainings by WHO - PAHO.

The fundamental challenge of the methodology is that OFDA limits its support to the dissemination of the methodology through training and does not assure a follow-up on the actual use of the methodology. Therefore, most actors adapt parts of the methodology to their needs, sometimes using the content of the methodology very superficially.

Lessons and inputs for PDNA: EDAN is relevant for PDNA due to its broad acceptance and usage by the Latin American humanitarian stakeholder community. The EDAN format or its adapted versions are used by many Civil Protection institutions to conduct the first post-disaster assessments. Efforts to incorporate or link elements of recovery in the EDAN emergency response assessment process will help establish the base for a systematic analysis of recovery needs in this region.

2.1.2.2 Reconstruction related

i. Methodology for estimating the socio-economic and environmental impact of disasters (UN ECLAC, 2003):

Background: The ECLAC methodology was developed and has been used in Latin America since the 1980s. More recently it has been used in parts of Asia after large scale disasters. This methodology has been systematized in a handbook, which was recently revised (in 2003) to capture the lessons generated from past assessments. The methodology is designed to quantify and value disaster damages and losses and identify the most affected social, economic and environmental sectors and geographic regions. International Financial Institutions (IFIs) like the World Bank, IDB and the ADB have been using the ECLAC methodology to help the national governments identify economic impacts and reconstruction needs of the affected community, to plan priority actions for rehabilitation and reconstruction.

Design and Content: The methodology is captured in the ECLAC handbook. The 2003 version of the handbook describes the methods required to assess the social, economic and environmental effects of disasters, breaking them down into direct damages and indirect losses and into overall and macroeconomic effects for rehabilitation and reconstruction. The handbook is divided into five sections each covering the following:

general conceptual and methodological framework; i.

methods for estimating damage and losses to social sectors, with separate chapters ii. on housing and human settlements, education and culture and health;

methods for estimating damage to services and physical infrastructure, including iii. chapters on transport and communications, energy and water and sanitation;

damages and losses to productive sectors, with separate chapters on agriculture and iv. fisheries, industry, trade and tourism; and

overall, cross-sectoral and macroeconomic effects, with separate chapters on v. environmental damages, the differential effect of the disaster on women, the impact


on employment and income, a procedure for calculating total direct and indirect losses, and the effects of the disaster on the main macroeconomic aggregates.

The methodology follows a series of steps covering

the compilation of information on the conditions prevailing before the disaster; 1.

the compilation of information on the scope and magnitude of the direct and indirect 2. damage as well as the secondary effects of the disaster by sector;

an overview of the full extent of the disaster’s socio-economic impact, or an evaluation 3. of the global magnitude of damage; and

the identification of the most severely affected economic and social sectors and 4. priorities for rehabilitation and reconstruction.

Application experience: The ECLAC methodology is well known and considered a particularly successful assessment methodology and approach, which has been applied by a number of countries in Latin America, the Caribbean and most recently in Asia. The World Bank (WB) along with regional development banks like the Inter American Development Bank (IDB) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) has used parts of the ECLAC methodology for post disaster damage and loss assessments (DLA) in Asia. Some recent examples include assessments in various countries after the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, the 2005 earthquake in south Asia and various typhoons in South East Asia. In Latin America the methodology was most recently applied in Guyana (2005), Guatemala (2005) and Bolivia (2007). The methodology allows for the quantification of damage caused by both human made and natural disasters and both slow onset and rapid onset disasters.

This use of the methodology has been marked by contextual variations and innovations to identify recovery focused needs and needs related to disaster risk management and reconstruction. Some examples of these variations are captured in the experiences below:

Case of the Preliminary Damage and Needs Assessment after the 2005 Pakistan Earthquake: The Government of Pakistan (GoP) with the WB, ADB and UN agencies used the ECLAC methodology to conduct a joint preliminary damage and needs assessment after the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan. The UNDP demonstrated a strong coordination role in the area of recovery during this assessment, after having conducted a separate assessment focused on immediate recovery needs of affected communities. Refer to subsection 2.1.1c for details. In order to avoid duplication of efforts, the joint assessment included inputs from the UN assessment on relief and early recovery. The joint assessment report had an exclusive chapter on the ‘guiding principles of need assessment and recovery strategy’ and one on ‘approach to reconstruction and recovery.’ Based on this joint assessment, the early recovery framework was developed in November 2005. This framework aimed to bridge the gap between immediate relief and long-term reconstruction and focused on identifying a set of concrete interventions to be implemented in a range of priority sectors. These assessments informed the design of the Early Recovery Plan.

Case of the Preliminary Damage and Needs Assessment after the 2004 tsunami in India: This inter-agency assessment was conducted to help guide the development of the national post tsunami recovery programme. It was jointly conducted by the ADB, UN (ILO, UNDP - BCPR, UNDP, GEF and UNICEF) and the WB through a Joint Assessment Mission (JAM) in February 2006. The


JAM team comprised of experts and specialists from different sectors and disciplines from the ADB, UN and WB. This team composition was deemed essential to produce a comprehensive, multi-sectoral assessment of damage and losses and to evaluate requirements for recovery and reconstruction.

The assessment aimed to:

identify the damage and losses incurred (based on the ECLAC methodology) a.

show the inter-relationship of effects in the different sectors, highlighting the cross b. cutting elements among them; and

provide an appropriate framework for the recovery and reconstruction effort. c.

The methodology was designed to help readers with sector prioritization, time sequencing and resource requirement identification. The report consists of sector wise description of needs with each sector with two distinct subsections, one each on damage and loss and recovery needs. Hazard risk management was included as a separate sector, with needs identified in the short, medium and long term.

While the assessment report guided the development of the UN Tsunami Recovery Support (UNTRS) programme, its findings were supplemented by additional and detailed assessments like:

agency assessments to identify needs relevant to the agencies programming mandate. a. e.g. UNICEF simultaneously hired an external consultancy firm to conduct a nutrition needs assessment.

sector specific assessments also called scoping studies to identify the local needs b. that were changing with time. The design of recovery projects and programmes were developed and amended accordingly. For example the FAO’s scoping study for tsunami recovery to address recovery gaps and design projects for sustainable livelihood support for fisheries. This study was conducted in January 2006, a year after the JAM and much after the UNTRS was formulated.

Case of Tsunami Impact and Recovery Joint Needs Assessment after the 2004 tsunami in Maldives: The ECLAC methodology was used for this joint assessment conducted by the WB, ADB and UN system. In identifying and quantifying the costs of responding to the disaster, the method looked at covering three aspects of immediate relief, reconstruction and risk mitigation. The national government standards for development were used to access needs in different sectors. However, it was acknowledged that these standards may be too high to achieve and not used for recovery projects and programmes. In addition to physical damage, the methodology also looked at human hardships generated due to loss of income, impact on livelihoods, loss of lives and injuries, and loss of personal effects like savings held in cash. While the report discusses some of these human hardships, the costing exercise is confined to physical damages.

The report covers recovery related needs in the sectors of education, health and nutrition, housing, fisheries, agriculture, water supply, sanitation, solid waste management, tourism, transport and communication, power and public administration. Gender was also reviewed as a cross-cutting issue.

An exclusive section on the needs related to disaster risk management (DRM) was compiled to help with sustainable recovery and vulnerability reduction in the long run. It covered DRM needs in three time frames: short-term (6 months), medium term (2.5 years) and long term (3 to 5


years). It provided an overview of the recovery landscape, capturing recovery needs, capacities, commitments and gaps that demanded resource mobilization and recovery planning.

Other examples from Asia: The use of the ECLAC methodology in other countries like Indonesia after the 2004 tsunami and the 2006 Yogyakarta earthquake has factored costs of ‘building back better’ in the reconstruction assessments. This has been done through inputs from housing experts. The World Bank in Indonesia has also identified criteria for ”minimum core needs,”20 that must be met with the support of government or donor funded programmes. Most assessment processes have also used local capacities like students and researchers in universities to conduct community surveys to collect primary data on needs.

In other cases the ECLAC methodology has also been contextualized and institutionalized at the government level. For example, the Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority (GSDMA), a state authority in India with the Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre (ADPC) and UNECLAC are developing a methodology for a Damage Assessment and Loss Estimation. This contextualized assessment methodology will cover needs in the sectors of housing, infrastructure, environment, education, health etc. The development of such an assessment is aimed at helping the state government plan better and more swiftly for recovery. This methodology is also being reviewed by the central government for wider application in India.

Case of the Socio-economic assessment of the damages and losses caused by the January-February 2005 Flooding in Guyana: The assessment was carried out by ECLAC and UNDP at the request of the Government of Guyana. ECLAC combined its methodology and training material with the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), methodology on socio-economic and environmental effects of disasters for this assessment. The international expert team comprised of ECLAC, UNDP and IICA staff. This experience represents an important case study for recovery as it includes a chapter on guidelines for a rehabilitation and reconstruction programme, which served as an important input for the UNDP - BCPR recovery guidelines.

Case of the assessment of the effects of the torrential rains and hurricane Stan on Guatemala (October 2005): At the request of the Government of Guatemala ECLAC conducted an assessment of needs based on its validated methodology. The international assessment team was broad including representatives of UN agencies, ECLAC and the World Bank. The Inter-American Development Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Central American Bank for Economic Integration (BCIE) also participated in the assessment. The report described damages and losses in social and economic sectors, in infrastructure and environment. It also identifies the global economic impact before suggesting reconstruction priorities. In also identifies risk reduction needs for reconstruction planning.

Some common trends evident in the use of the ECLAC methodology in Asia and the LAC include a distinct focus on and separate sections for recovery needs. This includes coverage of recovery related strategies being developed by national actors, specially the government, identification of capacities alongside needs and special focus on areas such a disaster risk management and the use of development standards for recovery. The degree of detail in which the damage, loss and need assessment data is provided depends on the availability of quantitative information in the country and the affected region.

20 Core minimum needs are defined as (i) full replacement of all public sector damage (as per the Damage and Loss Assessment); (ii) financing of private sector needs such as housing, agriculture, fishing, up to the limit set by the Master Plan; (iii) partial financ-ing of environmental damage, which can only be addressed to a very limited degree by external interventions, and (iv) inflation adjustment given recent price trends.


Strengths and Challenges: Its strength is in providing an economic valuation of disaster impact as against a mono-dimensional picture of disaster impact for emergency response. It helps identify short, medium and long-term impacts of natural disasters on macroeconomic, social and environmental performance of countries and their populations. The findings are considered trustworthy and therefore broadly referred to by many organizations, be it governments, UN agencies, NGO or others. Its buy-in and use by IFIs like the WB, regional banks like the ADB and IADB and donor organizations such as GTZ also make it even more desirable for use by the national governments, as it comes with an understanding of financial support from these banks and donors. It is flexible and adaptable to inclusion of recovery needs and additional sectors like disaster risk management.

The first challenge that it faces is that it is primarily designed for damage and loss assessment rather than for assessment of needs. In the words of an interviewee, “the ECLAC methodology is designed as a DLA, but owing to the lack of needs assessment methodologies is used to identify recovery and development needs.” The methodology is also considered very detailed (with 3 versions) and complicated for use without formal training. The trainings organized up to date has been limited. A common critique in its use in Asia is related to the composition of the assessment team. The teams are considered more political than functional in composition, lacking presence of local actors with local language skills and an understanding of the social systems and culture. In some cases this has been attributed as a cause for ignoring the social needs of special groups and misunderstanding needs. Another challenge is a weak assessment of social impacts, needs and capacities in comparison to the economic impacts, needs and capacities. Meanwhile its capacity to map the big picture through aggregated data is an important strength of the methodology. This capacity is also a limitation as it is not sensitive to different local realities. The methodology is therefore a useful tool for identifying resource needs, rather than recovery programming needs at a local level. Also as the assessment needs to be requested by the government and the report cleared by all actors, its findings are often delayed preventing local organizations to use them for their recovery planning. This is also because local organizations are under immense pressure from donors to submit recovery projects for funding immediately after the disaster. Thus in many cases the ECLAC assessment findings are used by organizations to justify their recovery program design rather than guide it.

To counter some of the above challenges the World Bank, which is promoting the use of the ECLAC methodology as a part of its Global Facility for Disaster Recovery and Reduction (GFDRR) has outlined a three track plan for developing recovery needs assessment capacity at the national level. They will be using simplified versions of the ECLAC methodology to develop national manuals and tools for recovery needs assessment. For details on this initiative refer to section 2.1.4.

Lessons and inputs for PDNA: The key question for the PDNA team is to clarify the rationale for the PDNA in the context of the emerging ECLAC methodology with its systematic focus on recovery (with the support of the WB) and its brand recognition by governments. This is all the more relevant at a time when various national adaptations of the ECLAC methodology in Asia have factored ‘recovery needs’ in addition to its focus on ‘reconstruction needs.’ The difference between the two concepts, their time lines, interface and connection needs to be clarified at the national and international level. The PDNA aims at establishing an operational guide that helps incorporate the richness of methodologies that capture the social dimensions of damage, loss


and recovery needs in an overarching systemic framework. This would lead to a comprehensive socio-economic valuation of damage, loss and interpretation of needs. Additionally it would be necessary to strengthen the social dimension in the ECLAC methodology, which is considered one of the weakness of the ECLAC.

Assuming that the PDNA as a framework will also need to be contextualized locally and should be institutionalized in government systems (with the support of the UN system), there is a need to ensure that the two efforts (UN and WB) are coordinated rather than duplicative. These efforts should also be coordinated with related initiatives on pre-disaster planning for recovery by the ISDR and the ILO. For details refer to section 2.1.4.

2.1.2.3 Stocktaking, evaluation and preparedness related

j. People’s Consultations on Post tsunami Relief, Reconstruction and Rehabilitation in Sri Lanka (2005):

Background: The people’s consultations was a stocktaking assessment and evaluation after the range of joint and single agency damage and needs assessments in response to the 2004 tsunami in Sri Lanka. It was also an evaluation of the disaster response by government, donors, national and local organizations in Sri Lanka. The consultation was designed to identify and address relief, reconstruction and rehabilitation (RRR) gaps after the tsunami, specially related to the local context and needs which were not adequately captured in the first few rounds of assessments. The first few assessments after the 2004 tsunami were primarily cost assessments with a focus on technical aspects of recovery and did not identify the social impact and needs of the affected. The consultations also aimed to address the issue of insufficient participation of the affected communities in the design and delivery of response and recovery initiatives.

The consultations were designed and conducted by the Disaster Relief Monitoring Unit (DRMU) of the Human Rights Commission (HRC), the Community Extension Centre (CUCEC) of Colombo University, and UNDP Sri Lanka. It was seen as a monitoring tool for assessing the progress of recovery operations and additional needs. The findings of this consultative assessment was used by the Sri Lanka government’s TAFREN (Task Force for Rebuilding the Nation) to guide its annual review of tsunami recovery and reconstruction.

Design, Content and Application: This method was developed and used for the first time in Sri Lanka (from July- September 2005), after initial assessments (joint and single agency led) had been concluded and initial relief and recovery activities initiated. The focus was on people’s assessment of the performance of local authorities, NGOs, INGOs in the nature and speed of relief and recovery operations. Nevertheless, it accomplished the twin activities of assessing the needs, concerns and ideas of the tsunami-affected and of sharing relevant recovery related information (like official decrees, policy decisions and statements on post-tsunami entitlements) with the affected communities.

The principal objectives of this assessment were:

to conduct consultations at the village-level (Grama Niladhari - Government Agent) in a. the tsunami affected areas to ascertain the needs of the affected;

to disseminate information on tsunami-related issues and decisions (official b. decrees, policy decisions, statements on post-tsunami entitlements) to the affected communities; and


to disseminate the findings of these consultations to policy makers.c.

It was designed as a multi-stakeholder activity with the participation of government agencies, educational institutions, UN system, donors, INGOs and NGOs. A series of meetings and discussions were carried out by these actors to develop the design and work plan for the consultations. Once a tool was developed it was piloted with the Grama Niladharis (GN) or local government officials covering

current situation of the state and pace of relief, recovery and the overall environment a. and

sector by sector investigation for the progress in RRR. b.

Two ToTs were organized for the assessment team members, who were drawn from 5 local universities in Sri Lanka including the University of Colombo, Ruhuna, South Eastern, Jaffna and the Eastern University. Other pre-consultation activities included design of visual tools like maps to capture the demographic changes after the tsunami and its response, organise meetings with district officials to keep them in the loop on these consultations, understand local dynamics and design local plans for consultations.

The consultations were conducted at the district level across a period of three months. It involved 800 focus group discussions in 1100 villages in 13 affected districts of Sri Lanka. The consultations and its findings were structured around

People’s voices on a. State and pace of relief and recovery •Land, resettlement and housing•Health •Education •Environment•Livelihoods•Social and cultural impact •

Voices of host communities b.

Voices of Government Agents, District Secretaries, Divisional Secretaries, INGOs and c. NGOs

District wise reports were prepared with segregated data to help local actors take local action. The findings of the report were moderately used by donors and implementing partners to inform their work. It was used by the TAFREN to inform its one year tsunami anniversary report.

Strengths and challenges: Its key strength is its participative design that involved multiple stakeholders (both horizontally and vertically) in the design process and the assessment team. The participation of communities through consultations and of government actors through meetings was a balanced approach to analysing perception of needs and related supply. The assessment not only helped with stocktaking, participation of communities in their recovery but also provide information to communities on their entitlements. It helped review and promote the need to consider RRR activities in through a decentralised lens as against the previously centralised approach. Its design also capitalised on the capacity of local universities to conduct detailed community assessments, a mechanism that has worked well in other countries of


Asia. Training for assessment teams also helped provide consistent information on assessment criteria to different teams. Additionally the segregated presentation of the assessment findings through district wise reports helped their use for local action.

The challenge that was faced during its first application and may be crucial to address in future applications is getting ‘real’ buy-in of the government in the assessment. In the case of Sri Lanka, government officials at the lower and higher administrative levels were sceptical to formally acknowledge gaps in RRR. For this reason the report was not signed on by the government and its publication got delayed. This contextual reality will need to be addressed for the effective use of this assessment by the largest player in RRR that is the government. Another challenge of this methodology is that it is a time and resource intensive exercise that needs to be negotiated and planned much before the assessment.

Lessons and inputs for PDNA: This participative stocktaking assessment method could be used to guide the development of one of the later recovery assessments during the PDNA process. Its participative design with capacity building inputs and use of local capacities like researchers in local universities is an important guidance for recovery assessment planning. Its focus on community based assessments and in satisfying the twin objectives of identifying needs, while facilitating information exchange between the affected community and response actors is an innovative approach to conducting assessments. Although it is contextual to the needs of Sri Lanka, the elaborate documentation of the process can help with its contextualization to the needs of other countries.

2.1.3 Sector Specific Needs Assessment Methodologies Complementary to the above mentioned multi-sectoral methodologies, a wide range of UN organizations, national ministries and other stakeholders have developed sector specific assessment methodologies. Some of the existing and emerging sector specific methodologies are reviewed in this sub-section.

a. WFP Emergency Food Security Assessment, EFSA (2005)

The World Food Programme has developed the Emergency Food Security Assessment for its staff, which includes guidelines, tools and tips for identifying needs in a range of emergency situations. The handbook was published in 2005 after a two-year consultation process, based on experiences in more than a hundred emergencies per year. Despite its focus on food security, the methodology pursues a comprehensive assessment and understanding of the impact of the disaster at the community and household level, considering the interaction between food insecurity, poverty, health and education. The WFP seeks partnership with the government, other UN agencies,21 NGOs and other relevant stakeholders to conduct the assessment. The assessment includes three levels: the initial investigation (first week), the rapid assessment and the in-depth follow-up assessment (1-2 months after the event depending on the context). While the initial investigation focuses on imminent life-saving necessities, the latter and more detailed assessments identify recovery needs as well as pending emergency response needs. WFP is training staff and partners in the use of the methodology.

This methodology is an interesting contribution to PDNA due to its process orientation, facilitating the transition from response to recovery. Although its focus is on food security, its

21 At the headquarter level, WFP has developed, with FAO (1996) and UNHCR (2004), joint assessment guidelines.


livelihood approach and causal analysis help identify recovery and development related needs following a disaster. A revised version, based on the livelihood approach, will be presented beginning 2008.

b. Global Health Cluster Rapid Health Assessment (2007)

Health is one of the sectors for which various response and recovery needs assessments have been developed by different organizations. One example is the manual for the evaluation of damages and health needs for disaster situations published by WHO - PAHO, in 200422. Based on this variation and with the objective to allow a quicker and comparable multi-agency analysis, the Global Health Cluster group produced a draft version of the rapid health assessment guidelines (RHA) in February 2007. These guidelines provide the methodological and analytical basis for the assessment through the use of four tools:

Team leader checklisti.

Reporting formatii.

Field and health facility questionnaire andiii.

Secondary data templateiv.

The guidelines have been designed for different disaster situations including rapid or slow onset disasters. They do not present a self-sufficient instrument but are perceived as the first step in a continuous assessment process. It claims to help provide initial action-oriented information

22 OPS (2004): Manual de evaluación de daños y necesidades en salud para situaciones de desastres. Serie Manuales y Guías sobre Desastres No. 4. A further document of this series comprises the evaluation of damages and the needs assessment related to mental health in disaster situations: OPS (2006): Guía práctica de salud mental en situacfiones de desastres. Serie Manuales y Guías sobre Desastres No. 7. A third manual introduces ODFA/EDAN methodology for damage and needs assessment for preparedness at the local level: OPS (2003): Preparativos de salud para situationes de desastres. Guía para el nivel local. Serie Manuales y Guías sobre Desastres No. 3.

Figure 9: The Ocean of Needs (RHA, 2007)


on which initial response and more comprehensive follow-up assessment missions may be designed. The methodology is based on the concept of the ocean of needs. This is based on the assumption that health services in developing countries are challenged in normal times and health needs get further increased after a disaster. Refer to figure 9.

The assessment methodology calls for the use of tools like review of existing information, interviews, observation and, if necessary, rapid surveys. It is not meant to replace the different methodologies applied by different organizations but rather to ensure a minimum standard and synergy in data collection and coordination.

c. Guidelines for HIV/AIDS Interventions in Emergency Settings (IASC)

The Guidelines for HIV/AIDS Interventions in Emergency Settings have been developed by the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Task force on HIV/AIDS in Emergency Settings to respond to the growing concern for the development of a more specific response to HIV/AIDS in crises. The purpose of these Guidelines is to enable governments and cooperating agencies, including UN Agencies and NGOs, to deliver the minimum required multi-sectoral response to HIV/AIDS during the early phase of a crisis. Among others, UNFPA has contributed to this guidelines based on its experiences with reproductive health and HIV/AIDS assessments. The guidelines are to be field proved.

d. Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, Chronic Crises or Early Reconstruction (INEE 2004/2006)

The Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE) is a global network of individual and organizations who are working together within a humanitarian and development framework to promote the right to education in emergencies and post-crises reconstruction. Members of the steering committee are UNICEF, UNESCO, the World Bank, USAID, Save the Children and CARE.

The network has designed the Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, Chronic Crises or Early Reconstruction (MSEE) on the conviction that education must be maintained during emergencies. It has laid out minimum standards concerning quality, access and responsibility. These standards have been designed after an intense process of consultations in 2003. They are designed for emergency situations related to conflicts and natural disasters. The INEE have initiated region-specific training on the use of these standards for governmental, UN agencies and NGO staff. The standards are designed for use by stakeholders to design their assessments and interventions.

The manual is divided into five categories of standards, presenting a total of nineteen minimum standards. These categories include:

Minimum standards common to all categories (participation, analysis etc.)i.

Access and Learning Environmentii.

Teaching and Learningiii.

Teachers and Other Educational Personneliv.

Education Policy and Coordinationv.


For each standard a set of indicators and guiding notes is included. Some formats for collecting data are included as annex.

This manual could serve as a useful reference for the PDNA to help assessment actors integrate education related needs in recovery processes. The PDNA should also consider the utility of other tools that may be produced by the 2006-2007 ISDR World Disaster Reduction Campaign on “Disaster reduction begins at school.”

e. Post-disaster Environmental Needs Assessment Practical Guide (UNEP 2007)

While the ECLAC methodology allows for the assessment of the impact of the disaster on the environment, no tool exists to ensure that recovery efforts conserve the environment within its build back better and risk reduction focus. In this context the UNEP in support of the PDNA has developed a practical guide for an Environmental Needs Assessment (ENA) in post-disaster situations. The objectives of the guide are:

to provide a consistent and internationally endorsed approach for identifying, costing, i. prioritizing, sequencing and integrating environmental needs within early recovery programming;

to raise awareness of key environment related issues; ii.

to influence and support the development of strategic plans and policies for iii. environmental recovery; and

to enable integration of environmental issues into an eventual portfolio of integrated iv. environmental interventions and remediation projects, that can be implemented over a 6-18 month period.

The initiative is currently presented in a draft concept note supplemented by a conceptual annex on the environmental dimensions of relief and recovery. This annex had originally been produced as an input to the OCHA/NAF and summarizes the dimensions and needs that should be addressed in the environmental needs assessment. Concerning early recovery, the issues that are covered include:

Which natural resources will be in high demand to meet early recovery needs and •what is the availability of these resources to meet further demands?

Which damaged natural resources and ecosystems need to be prioritized for •restoration?

What natural resources management considerations should be taken into account •during early recovery and in the medium and long-term reconstruction and development planning?

And what environmental management capacity concerns should be addressed during •early recovery and in the long-term?

The development of the ENA is planned to be an iterative process of consultations in order to achieve endorsement by all the relevant stakeholders. The draft guide will be tested in at least two countries before the final guide is published at the beginning of 2008.


2.1.4 Further Initiatives with Relevance for PDNAThere are several initiatives being led by different international stakeholders that could support and should inform the design of the PDNA. These are:

2.1.4.1 Supportive initiatives

a. IFRC - ProVention Consortium’s strengthening the Social Analysis Component in Rapid Impact and Vulnerability Assessment

Experience shows that insufficient attention is still being paid to social aspects, especially social vulnerability and livelihood needs in recovery assessments and processes. For this purpose, more participative approaches are required for the assessments and the implementation processes. With the objective to identify opportunities to strengthen the social aspects in the existing and emerging damage and needs assessments, IFRC/ProVention organised a workshop in Panama in January 2007. The workshop report (draft version) presents the results of the workshop, a discussion paper elaborated during the workshop23 and related initiatives. As a result, the participants made the recommendation, among others, to continue the conceptual discussion on social aspects and to foment the incorporation of these aspects in methodologies (e.g. ECLAC/World Bank) and training programmes. The compendium of existing initiatives should be completed and further stakeholders contacted. One of the initiatives to be stronger linked with is the ECBG “Good Enough Guide” presented below.

This IFRC/ProVention initiative is already and will continue to provide an important contribution to assure comprehensiveness for the PDNA framework.

b. Emergency Capacity Building Group (ECBG)’s The Good Enough Guide - Impact measurement and accountability in emergencies

The Good Enough Guide has been developed, since November 2005, by the Emergency Capacity Building Group (ECBG) with support of many further contributions. The ECBG is a collaborative effort of CARE International, Catholic Relief Services, the International Rescue Committee, Mercy Corps, Oxfam GB, Save the Children, and World Vision International. The guide has been initiated with the objective to help field workers to be accountable to local people and measure programme impact in emergency situations. It has been developed through wide-ranging consultations including several workshops and has recently been published in 2007. It is not to replace the different organizations’ existing tool24, but perceived as a useful supplement.

The document provides orientations on five aspects as well as fourteen concrete tools related to impact measurement and accountability in emergencies. It is limited to emergency response and does not imply methods for needs assessments. Nevertheless, it can be useful for the PDNA initiative as it aspires to render emergency response as participative and process-oriented as possible. The guidelines and tools define criteria for and support a response process based on the real needs and change aspirations of the affected people and communities. Furthermore, it considers monitoring mechanisms to facilitate the adaptation of response measures to changing circumstances and needs. The tools are based on practical experiences of the involved organizations and simple in use. Due to its general, participative and process-oriented

23 Components of a Good Social Analysis: an attempt to take stock.24 Two recent examples are the CARE International Accountability & Standards Benchmarks for Humanitarian Responses (draft

2007), and the Mercy Corps Rapid Assessment Questionnaire (2007).


character, the guide can contribute to strengthening a comprehensive approach among the humanitarian stakeholders and ease the transition between emergency response and recovery measures.

2.1.4.2 Relevant initiatives

In addition to the above initiatives, the PDNA must take into account and build partnerships with emerging recovery supportive initiatives that are being led by various agencies. These are essentially initiatives to support national capacity building in recovery preparedness.

c. World Bank’s Recovery Capacity Building Initiative (2007):

This initiative is being initiated by the World Bank’s Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) in partnership with the ECLAC. It includes a three track plan for developing recovery needs assessment capacity at the national level by:

using the ECLAC methodology to develop simplified assessment guidelines for •different sectors;

train WB staff at the head quarter and country level in the use of the simplified sectoral •guidelines for assessment;

develop contextualized national recovery needs assessment manuals and tools with •national governments in low development and high risk countries and build their capacity for its use.

This three track initiative will be supported by international initiatives like the WB’s Quick Response Team (QRT) and a database of bank staff that could be deployed as a part of the QRT to support recovery assessments. The PDNA framework development and piloting strategy should be cognizant of this development and work towards partnering with the World Bank to pilot the PDNA as a complementary recovery assessment framework at the national level.

d. ILO and UNDP’s Pre-disaster Recovery Preparedness Initiative (2007):

This initiative aims to build recovery capacity of high risk and low development countries that have been identified in the World Bank’s Global Hotspots Report (2005). The partners for this preparedness initiative include the ILO, UNDP/ BCPR, and the UN/ ISDR Secretariat, under the overall framework of the IRP and the CWGER.

The initiative initially plans to pilot two consultative workshops in two regions of the world to develop a framework for pre-disaster recovery planning for selected countries. This framework will seek to guide national and local disaster management and disaster reduction institutions in identifying and planning implementing activities to better prepare for the recovery. The initiative has developing a draft framework to guide and monitor pre-disaster recovery planning, which may be used and amended to help countries develop a contextualized national framework during or following the workshops. The participants would consist of recovery practitioners from national and local government agencies, disaster management and - reduction institutions, multilateral agencies, civil society and the private sector, given their well established practices of recovery planning and business continuity).

The PDNA should work closely with this preparedness initiative to identify the assessment relevant needs of the country and help them use the PDNA framework and tools to develop recovery needs analysis capacity.


2.2 Recovery Assessment Trends, Lessons and Gaps

2.2.1 In Asia:

2.2.1.1 Trends in recovery assessments:

The region of Asia has faced various disasters in the last few decades. As a consequence many regional and national agencies have developed reasonable experiences and capacities related to recovery relevant needs assessments. There has been a growing trend of informal in-country and south-south exchange of recovery expertise in Asia. These experts and - agencies come in or are invited with their package of assessment methods, recovery practices and lessons to help guide the local actors. These assessment methods mostly consist of formats for damage and loss data collection and guidelines for their use. Many external agencies conduct assessments in partnership with local agencies to help develop and execute agency specific recovery programmes in the area. The IFRC’s emergency and recovery assessment mechanism (RAT teams) and tools is a case in point. Others help local actors (especially governments and agencies) develop capacities in conducting local assessments. The assessments carried out by TISS and ADPC’s support to governments in Asia are examples of such support. Use of local volunteers and students of local universities as researchers for community based surveys for assessments is also growing.

Nevertheless, the most common assessment method in Asia was informal analysis of needs based on interaction with communities during response support, informal consultations and information gained from coordination meetings hosted by the government and other organizations. NGOs local to the affected area rely on such assessments, owing to the pressures from donors to rapidly submit project proposals for recovery, in the early phases of emergency response. On the other hand, in order to support larger and technical assessments many donor and international agencies hire consultancy firms or specialist agencies. Some agencies using such firms include government authorities, ADB, UNICEF etc.

Information exchange forums coordinated by the UN and or the local government are used to share the findings of these assessments and the plans of agencies for recovery. The findings are however difficult to compare given the varied types of assessment methods and varied definitions of recovery, affected communities, needs and demands and standards for recovery and development. It is observed that the impact of the assessment findings on recovery programming is based as much on its process (who participates, when, how, with what focus etc.) as its product (type of report and its dissemination).

Another trend is of assessments emerging as landmarks in the recovery process across the disaster time line, rather than a one time exercise. The various types of needs assessments have been given several names, from preliminary recovery assessments to stocktaking reports, people’s consultations and one year anniversary reports. At the regional level coalitions like the Tsunami Evaluation Coalition (TEC) after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami have also reviewed the nature, scope and utility of needs assessments and its impact on recovery interventions.

With progressive experiences and the emergence of the UN’s cluster approach to humanitarian response, many national actors have started developing recovery focussed data and needs assessment methodologies. Some national examples include the PDNA in Bangladesh and the DANA in Vietnam. At the regional level training institutions like the ADPC are developing


training programs to help develop capacities of local actors in assessments, especially national disaster programme managers. UNDP’s Regional Centre in Bangkok has also piloted training on enhancing capacity for disaster recovery in an effort to build a surge capacity for recovery within its UNDP Country Offices in the region. These regional initiatives are in addition to the global agency and inter-agency assessment methods and tools being developed by agencies and cluster working groups. These include the shelter assessment tool by HABITAT, livelihood tool by FAO/ILO etc. At the international level, the World Bank has planned an initiative for developing national manuals and capacity for recovery assessments based on the adaptation of the ECLAC methodology. Agencies like the ISDR and ILO are also working on developing national recovery preparedness capacity through a pilot initiative that will be launched in Asia in 2007.

All these are measures of recovery preparedness suggest an increasing interest by governments and international agencies in building recovery needs assessment methodologies to help generate timely and coordinated recovery frameworks after a disaster.

2.2.1.2 Lessons and gaps in recovery needs assessment

There is a high level of ambiguity related to the use of the term recovery, specially a. the difference between early and long term recovery in relation to rehabilitation and reconstruction. This is challenging for both stakeholders conducting joint recovery assessments and for those who are reviewing recovery assessment reports (sector or area specific) to analyse cross sectoral needs and recovery priorities.

The definition of needs also varied across actors. Broadly it was understood as an aggregate b. of requirements demanding support from the government, donors, public sources, NGOs and community resources. These requirements could be higher or lower than the damage and losses. It could be lower in cases of insurance and community capacity and higher if disaster risk reduction and development standards were applied and in light of post disaster inflation.

Many recovery stakeholders, especially international donors rely on mass media reports c. rather than detailed scientific assessments to plan their strategies for supporting disaster response and within its recovery activities. Given the limited understanding of the mass media on recovery issues and limited contact of formal assessment teams with them, the recovery needs requirements are not disseminated timely and accurately.

Disaster events invite and give birth to a range of actors who in turn organize a range of d. assessments to identify damages, losses and needs. This surge of actors and assessments inevitably leads to assessment fatigue at the end of those being assessed. Recovery assessments that are sandwiched between emergency and reconstruction assessments and have recently emerged as an exclusive exercise is being considered as an unnecessary addition to the range of formal inter-agency assessments.

The appropriate timing for recovery assessments has been an area of contention. While e. most feel it should be around the close of the emergency phase this timing is not always suitable for affected communities and local NGOs. For the affected community it is too early to comprehend recovery when they are grappling with day to day survival and emergency needs. For NGOs it is too late as there is immense pressure from their donors


to submit recovery project proposals by the emergency phase so that they are processed and funds allocated for prompt recovery action on the close of the emergency phase.

The purpose and methodology for the assessment must be clarified not only to help the f. developers and conductors of assessments, but also the readers of assessment reports. This has a crucial implication on the review and analysis of recovery needs across the disaster time-line. It must be remembered that some assessment are agency focussed and thus focus on areas in which the specific agency is mandated and has the capacity to work. This focus should not be misunderstood as the intensity of recovery need.

There is a difference between recovery demands (of the affected communities), recovery g. supply (donor focus and agency mandate), recovery needs and recovery standards (based on disaster risk reduction and development goals). The existence of these variations must be acknowledged by the assessment team and focus of the assessment should be clarified in the report.

Many agency specific assessments identify recovery needs or demand based on the supply h. of capacities and resources from their donors. Such assessments do not make an attempt to priorities the communities needs in the larger recovery landscape. As a consequence recovery resources are invested in areas that are not primary to initiating a process of self-recovery by the community and often lead to creating dependency.

Despite the existence of established assessment tools like the ECLAC methodology, i. assessments of recovery needs has been week, as the assessment team members have had limited understanding of the methodology and the process of conducting assessments. In the words of an interviewee, ‘a good assessment report is not a product of a good assessment methodology and tool, but the capacity of the people who use it.”

The cause of social exclusion of certain groups in recovery is not only a result of systematic j. social discrimination, but also because of lack of data on these groups in damage and need assessment reports. This lack of data is primarily due to the lack of a representative assessment team with knowledge of local dynamics. Another reason is the preference for national rather than community based assessments that do not cover the community dynamics in detail.

Joint assessments should be conducted as soon as the emergency needs are being k. reasonably satisfied. However the timing for this assessment should be based on the contextual needs of the disaster and the speed in which emergency needs are being met.

Joint assessment ‘process’ is as, if not more important than joint assessment ‘products’ in l. building coordinated recovery frameworks and related programmes and projects. The foundation for coordination laid by an assessment process is seen to extend to design and implementation of recovery activities.

Assessment processes that are restricted to separate sectors and themes tend to provide m. fragmented analysis, making it difficult to determine the interaction of these (and other) factors, and to decide questions of relative priority. The lack of a standard methodology and related variables for cross-sectoral assessments challenges comparison across assessment reports.


Despite inter-agency joint assessments, agencies will conduct, sector assessments and n. independent assessments to guide their work programming. Thus it is futile to call for one comprehensive assessment. On the contrary assessments should be encouraged to cover multiple angles on recovery needs and capacities. The methods and findings of these should however be comparable and should be amenable for a common analysis of needs.

Recovery assessment should include assessment of residual relief needs and include o. assessment of capacities for recovery.

Assessments should formally acknowledge the need to maintain damage, loss and needs p. data for tracking the changing recovery needs and their satisfaction through recovery programmes and projects.

Preparedness for recovery assessments, specially related to identification of sources for q. baseline data (like development reports, comprehensive risk assessments etc.), build and maintain roster of recovery experts, arrangements for mobilising coordinated assessment teams and building the capacity of potential team members must be made to help timely execution of assessments.

There are no standard tools for rapid damage and needs assessments that may be used r. by different actors. These should be developed by the PDNA. These tools should not be academic, lengthy and or complicated. Instead they should be developed in the form of simple formats and guidelines that are translatable and easy to be used by different actors. These should be minimal to capture essential ‘rapid needs’ data and multi-sectoral to identify priority and related needs in different sectors, which may be addressed simultaneously.

Sector and theme specific assessment tools for areas such as governance, disaster risk s. reduction, information management, gender, recovery communications and recovery capacity mapping are urgently needed to build capacity for recovery and risk reduction. Past attempts to cover these in joint assessments may be used to develop specific tools and checklists for mainstreaming these in different assessments. UN agencies with existing mandates and capacities in this area may take a lead in developing these tools, for example, UNDP could lead in the area of governance, UNFPA in gender etc.

The rapid assessment data should be collected at the lower administrative level (responsible t. for disaster coordination at the country level). As a means of recovery preparedness these consistent assessment formats should be institutionalized in the government system, and the complete data information should be collected at the national level.

Community based assessments are crucial to help identify and prioritise the recovery u. needs of the affected. For example, while the repair of both the road and school may be essential recovery needs, however the community may choose to invest resources in the school to ensure that they can attend to their livelihood with their children taken care of in the morning. Community involvement helps counter balance the organizations interest of supplying what they have rather than what people need and also helps identify local capacity for recovery.


Inclusion of members from or sub-contracting assessments to local institutions, especially v. social science universities has emerged as a means of capitalising on the local resources for conducting community based assessments. Good practice examples range from rapid emergency and stocktaking assessments after the 2004 tsunami (in India and Sri Lanka) to the 2005 South Asia earthquake (in India and Pakistan) and the 2006 Yogyakarta earthquake (in Indonesia).

All assessment reports must be disseminated electronically if not physically. Organising w. workshops and meetings to share findings with not just donors but other recovery actors is a gap that needs to be addressed. They could be loaded on a website that could be maintained by the cluster leader for early recovery UNDP.

Periodic needs assessment should be carried out by field teams and amendments to the x. recovery programme strategy made as appropriate. A linear approach to assessments like the linear approach to the disaster management cycle creates a gap between assessment, implementation and review and evaluation, with each being seen as distinct and consecutive phases. This prevents feedback loops that are crucial to addressing the fast changing recovery needs.

Institutional capacity development needs of local recovery actors must be identified and y. if possible built during the recovery assessment. This specially relates to capacities for disaster impact, response, recovery and rehabilitation data and information management. Such capacities will help monitor the recovery progress of the affected and help identifying the need for additional assessments and related recovery activities.

Experiences related to the development and use of assessment methods, specially those z. covering cross cutting issues like governance, gender, disaster risk reduction, recovery capacity, information management and communication have not been documented. Documentation should be promoted to help adapt and enhance exiting assessment methods and used for training of potential assessment teams.

2.2.2 In Latin America

2.2.2.1 Trends in recovery assessments

Especially since the various regional disaster experiences of the 1990s (El Niño in South America, Mitch in Central America), a broad range of actors in Latin America have been trying to improve disaster prevention, mitigation and preparedness, as well as to render the post-disaster response process more efficient. For response, governmental organizations (especially Civil Defence), Red Cross Societies, the UN system, donor organizations and national and international NGOs have developed methodologies for rapid response needs assessments and established – some more than others – mechanisms for enhanced coordination. Most organizations involved in emergency response follow their own procedures. The international community adapts regional or global methodologies to national conditions or supports national or local partners in this process. For the emergency phase, the capacity to locally identify needs in the affected communities is crucial. This may be found in municipal or decentralised government bodies, in NGO staff or in local experts.

Even if for that reason the methodologies differ from country to country and actor to actor, at the regional level it seems that the influence of OFDA/EDAN methodology (compare 2.1.2) is


important due to a broad dissemination via training. Based on first general rapid assessments the different sectors proceed following their own methods to identify specific response needs. There is a trend to use resources more efficiently through an improved coordination between actors. Examples include national networks of humanitarian actors (e.g. Guatemala) and the promotion of UN emergency teams (UNETT) and UN interagency contingency plans in each country. Another initiative is the REDLAC rapid assessment methodology, a joint effort of UN agencies, IFRC and international NGOs to better coordinate between their organizations and to offer other actors (e.g. governments) methodological inputs for the development of their methodology (compare 2.1.2).

Contrary to the array of methodologies for response needs assessments, there is a gap concerning (early) recovery needs assessment methodologies. Some of the more detailed response methodologies include several aspects of recovery, but seldom in a systematic manner. An exception to this is the FAO/ILO livelihood methodology (Refer to subsection 2.1.1). This reflects the traditionally weak practical connection between response activities on the one hand and development and risk reduction efforts on the other hand, in spite of the clear conceptual link. Responsibilities and mandates are mostly limited to either emergency response or development institutions or are split up in different departments (e.g. ECHO and RELEX in the European Community). A variety of governments and organizations is considering the link between response and development as far as possible25 and many governments try to re-accommodate their institutions’ responsibilities and improve coordination. Nevertheless, at this point in time, this link is still deficient in most governments. The applied wording and timing is not homogenous, and a specific recovery needs assessment does not seem to exist. Two UN initiatives are currently trying to fill this gap. Firstly, an early recovery chapter, prepared by UNDP-BCPR-LAC, is included in the OCHA capacity building matrix for UN interagency contingency plans in Latin America. Secondly, UNDP has developed guidelines for Early Recovery, based on several case studies, which are to be promoted via training programmes throughout the region (refer to subsection 2.1.1). Furthermore, a willingness of some organizations to review the own methodology in order to improve recovery needs aspects (especially REDLAC) exists. In this context the ECLAC damage and loss evaluation methodology is a very important tool, as it is very renowned for offering a reliable database for recovery (refer to subsection 2.1.2).

The consequence of the current gap concerning recovery needs assessments is that recovery often does not pursue a comprehensive approach and often neglects social and non-quantifiable aspects. Therefore another important initiative for recovery in Latin America is the recent IFRC/ProVention initiative with its goal of improved integration of social aspects in recovery processes (refer to subsection 2.1.4).

Case study Guatemala: recovery from Hurricane Stan, October 2005

During the first days of October 2005, Guatemala, El Salvador and the southern part of Mexico were affected by Hurricane Stan. In Southern and South western Guatemala, 15 departments suffered from torrential rains that provoked floods and landslides affecting directly more than 450,000 people. 669 people lost their lives, more than 844 were missing and at the hurricane’s strongest moment, more than 40,000 people were staying in shelters. More than 9,000 houses were destroyed and another 25,000 damaged.

25 E.g. The mandate of ECHO and Oxfam is limited to response and short-term rehabilitation considering the pre-disaster condi-tion. In these limits they nevertheless integrate risk reduction activities, especially preparedness.


During the first days of the disaster, the UN System covered the response for the most strongly affected departments of Sololá and San Marcos, while the Guatemalan Government responded to the emergency needs in the other affected areas. The response was coordinated by the National Council for Disaster Reduction (CONRED) under a declared State of Emergency. Based on the results of a UNDAC mission and further information, the President of Guatemala requested international assistance. The Flash Appeal based on requirements of nine UN agencies was published on October 14 seeking funds (24,670,000 USD) for water and sanitation, food security, shelter and social infrastructure, health services, communication and access to services, inter-agency coordination and support to national institutions, disaster preparedness, mitigation and information management.26 For the following emergency phase the UN system applied the cluster approach.

The elaboration of a reconstruction plan after Hurricane Stan was first the responsibility of the Secretariat of Planning (SEGEPLAN) and was based on the results of the ECLAC evaluation presented on 10 November.27 A Reconstruction Cabinet was installed under the guidance of a Reconstruction Manager, comprising officials from different Ministries, Secretaries, Funds, Civil Protection (CONRED) and a Transparency Commissioner. Nevertheless, as this first plan did not find the support of the International Community, a second plan was forged and elaborated upon with the support of the United Nations, especially UNDP. This new National Plan for Reconstruction with Transformation (Plan Nacional de Reconstrucción con Transformación), presented in June 2006, has since then been implemented with governmental and donor (mainly Sweden, USAID and Norway) funds. According to official statistics, about 94 percent of the reconstruction has been realised. The interviewed persons agree that these advances are due to the rehabilitation and reconstruction of big infrastructure; meanwhile about 10,000 families still live in temporary shelters or with extended family members and the progress in the reconstruction of houses has been delayed. Another bias is a focus of governmental reconstruction on the coastal areas, neglecting the most affected communities in the altiplano departments of Sololá and San Marcos.

In January 2006 the UN agencies (UNDP-BCPR, FAO, Habitat, ILO and UNV) made a proposal to the Reconstruction Management to accompany the government during the reconstruction process. This offer was updated and accepted by the Government in September, based on the new Reconstruction Plan.

UNDP has been heavily involved in the definition of the Plan for Reconstruction with Transformation to be financed with governmental funds and an additional 28 Million USD required from international donors. 12.5 Million USD was allocated by USAID and the governments of Sweden and Norway. UNDP was commissioned with the execution of these funds, strongly linked to the national Reconstruction Plan and coordinated with the governmental administration in charge. The funds from Sweden, USAID and Norway have been used to help 4,000 families in the most affected areas in Sololá and San Marcos. As the advances are very slow and frustration among the affected families and the donors is increasing, UNDP has established alliances with CARITAS and Visión Mundial to support the government in the local processes. Other donors, such as AECI and GTZ, have seperate programmes; meanwhile the Inter-American Development Bank is making loans available for the reconstruction of infrastructure based on the government’s request.

26 Guatemala Flash Appeal 2005, October 14, 2005.27 CEPAL/SEGEPLAN (2005): Efectos en Guatemala de las lluvias torrenciales y la tormenta tropical Stan, octubre de 2005.


Methodologies applied to identify recovery needs: For the initial response needs assessment, CONRED adapted the OFDA/EDAN format. This was used after Stan and the resulting information was considered for the Reconstruction Plan. The formats are now, after Stan, being reviewed for further use. The existing format is a one-pager and rather simple and requires an extended and sector-related evaluation. For water and sanitation CONRED is currently establishing a new manual and formats to be used by the related actors in all disaster-related phases. PAHO is involved in the elaboration.

In order to define rehabilitation and reconstruction needs, the Government chose, consistent with its politics, a decentralised approach. Needs were defined on a project basis mainly by the departmental development councils, taking into account local information and the results of the ECLAC evaluation of November 2005. The municipal level was invited to participate in this process, but rarely a municipality had the capacities to do so. No specific needs assessment methodology was applied.

Due to this project-based approach and the efficiency of the diagnosis established by the transport sector, the first national plan was limited to the rehabilitation and reconstruction of infrastructure, especially of roads, bridges and public buildings. First in May 2006, fostered by evidence of the deficiencies of this process,28 a dialogue was started on how to reach a more comprehensive, community-oriented and development-oriented approach. CONRED was invited to strengthen risk reduction in the process, and UNDP was commissioned to prepare a new plan. This National Plan for Reconstruction with Transformation was presented in June 2006 and was based on the principles of the Early Recovery Framework.29 Taking into account the existing vulnerabilities and risks, this new plan had the objectives to reduce these risks, create sure and condign livelihoods and contribute to a sustainable development. Therefore it focused on two key elements: the construction of productive livelihoods (Spanish: habitat productivo) and disaster risk reduction, using short and long-term measures.

The contribution of USAID, Sweden and Norway, executed by UNDP, is defined in a related Programme called “Risk Reduction in the process of reconstruction of the local livelihood” (PROREC) and includes a strong coordination between the UN system, the government and the involved donors. It focuses on the establishment of productive livelihoods with low risk level for 4,000 families, 2,000 of them having at their disposal the necessary work and income, and on the strengthening of planning and risk reduction capacities at local levels.

For the implementation of this programme, a complex coordination structure has been developed with the objective

to articulate the different governmental sector institutions in favour of a comprehensive a. process, and

to provide a basis for an efficient technical support to the government entities by the b. specialised UN agencies.

Applying a comprehensive approach, the most relevant sectors identified for recovery in Guatemala are shelter and resettlement, water and sanitation, education including mental

28 E.g. rehabilitated roads have been newly damaged during the first days of the raining seasons; resistance of the population against land bought by the government for resettlement for socio-cultural reasons and for being at risk (landslides).

29 Concentration on the most vulnerable population, recovery of the population’s capacities, recovery of livelihoods, promotion of human development, articulation of actions, participation and decentralisation, and monitoring. The UN System Early Recovery Framework (compare 2.1.2 on UNDP/BCPR post-disaster recovery guidelines).


health, health and nutrition, work and income generation, and risk reduction. Gender, the construction of social structures (Spanish: “tejido social”) as well as capacity building can be considered cross-cutting issues. The support of the UN system involves FAO (productive work and income generation, mitigation), ILO (job and income generation), WHO/PAHO (water and sanitation, health services), WFP (nutrition, local initiatives), UNICEF (childhood and youth, preparedness, water and sanitation), UNIFEM (gender), UNOPS (infrastructure), UNV (local capacities) and UNDP (shelter and resettlement, risk reduction). Governance has not been especially addressed in the post-disaster response and recovery process.

After Stan, the UN agencies applied their sector specific assessment methodologies in coordination with their governmental and other entities. In the beginning they relied mostly on the information gathered by CONRED and their respective partner ministries supporting further and more detailed evaluations (e.g. PAHO). As the Ministry for Agriculture (MAGA) did not have enough local staff, FAO deployed its own staff to get a first livelihood assessment (Rapid Rural Appraisal etc.). The same is true for donor organizations (e.g. ECHO, Oxfam) that use government and socio data and apply their own procedures later for their more specific purpose. Oxfam adapted the OFDA/EDAN methodology with public health staff for a first 72 hours’ evaluation. Since November 2005, a more detailed and slow livelihood oriented Food Security assessment for the most affected departments Sololá and San Marcos30 has been added to this rapid response assessment. The results of the ECLAC evaluation have been used by the different organizations and the government to give a reliable and stable overview of the situation. Another important source of information has been the UNDP Stan website. The REDLAC methodology has not been applied and is not yet well known by the interview partners. A specific methodology to identify recovery needs does not exist. The definition of recovery needs has rather been a process of monitoring while working and observing local tendencies, based on the first response oriented assessments. The applied instruments are focused on emergency response some including manifest recovery aspects. One example is the Food Security assessment applied by Oxfam since November 2005 which led to different activities in different areas, some more limited to response, others progressing very soon to recovery measures, such as the dispensing of seeds.

The coordination between the actors and the information management was not very efficient during the first months due to a lack of preparedness in the government as well as the UN system and between the both of them. This led to a rather sectoral approach, neglecting a comprehensive and development oriented entry point for recovery. It took six months for the government and the UN system to achieve a coherent and sustainable concept for rehabilitation and reconstruction. On the contrary, coordination has worked relatively well since the beginning within the sectors, between the UN agencies and its well-known sector specific partners, i.e. governmental institutions and (local) NGO.

Among the donors, only USAID, Sweden and Norway are contributing to the National Recontruction Plan via the UNDP executed programme. Others, like ECHO or GTZ, link its recovery projects to the governmental Reconstruction Plan. ECHO does not have an own needs assessment methodology; the projects are therefore based on the needs identified by its executing entities, mainly international NGO with working experience in the affected areas. GTZ has identified its regional and sectoral focus (rehabilitation of productive livelihoods in

30 Oxfam has a global methodology for Food Security Assessment that is adapted to the country and the concrete situation. Fur-thermore, it uses PHAST in order to train health promoters assuming that it’s the national capacities that endure.


eight municipalities of Huehuetenango and San Marcos) during a needs assessment mission, based on the available data (government, UN system, ECLAC) and strong coordination with the Reconstruction Manager as well as local representatives. GTZ gave the priority to the strongly affected and less attended municipalities with high poverty level. A more detailed prioritization of communities in the selected municipalities has been done at the beginning of the programme, applying especially defined criteria.

Lessons learnt from post-Stan recovery in Guatemala: Despite an effective start coordinated by CONRED during the devastation of Stan, the national capacities were soon overwhelmed by the dimension of the disaster, the information provided by a broad range of actors in different formats and the multitude of humanitarian initiatives. The sector that most quickly identified recovery needs was infrastructure. Its efficiency and the governmental interests led to a strong bias in favour of the reconstruction of roads and bridges. Social aspects were neglected during the first months of recovery, due to the political priorities but also due to the higher complexity and process orientation of livelihood needs assessments. The current Plan for Reconstruction with Transformation established in September 2006 includes social and development oriented elements, including disaster risk reduction. Nevertheless, the implementation of comprehensive and participative approaches is still very difficult today.

The cooperation between the UN system and the government has varied, and has sometimes been good, sometimes difficult; this depends a lot on the ministers and vice-ministers. In some case they have worked together with the international community before and have a more comprehensive approach; others are linked to the private sector and guided by personal interests. The biggest challenge has been the discontinuity at the institutional level.

The coordination of the different actors (government, UN system, donors and NGOs) has been very weak, especially at the national level. The governmental institutions were not able to assume the leadership role, and this slowed up the recovery process and affected the quality and sustainability of some contributions. Coordination has been much better at the local level. Based on this experience, the humanitarian NGOs and CONRED have agreed to establish a joint website in order to improve coordination in emergency situations. The UN plays an important role in coordination and in its support of CONRED for an improved information management.

For a post-disaster response and recovery process, a strong government is needed. This was not the case in Guatemala. The government did not sufficiently involve interests of the affected population in planning processes, especially in resettlement. The administration was weak and focused on concrete (infrastructure) projects without a comprehensive vision and development orientation (lack of sustainability). The Mitch experiences have been lost. One positive experience was the strength of many Guatemalan municipalities. Furthermore, the donor community, Civil Society and NGO on their part profited from Mitch-based networks and capacities to attend the affected people.

A key sector for recovery has been shelter, with regard to temporary shelter as well as the rehabilitation and reconstruction of permanent houses and communities. Some of the problems encountered in this respect in Guatemala have been a deficient consideration of risk and socio-cultural aspects in the definition of resettlement areas, the explosion of prices for land and land tenure conflicts. At a very late stage, the government initiated a more participative and comprehensive process which had to deal with a high level of frustration and distrust within the affected population. UNDP assumed the sector for the UN System adapting for this purpose


needs assessment enquiry formats developed by the Guatemalan fund for housing needs (FOGUAVI).

Based on the recent experiences, two consequences have been drawn by the government related to the enhancement of institutional disaster preparedness. On the one hand CONRED has since improved its preparedness capacities including further decentralisation, staff training and the development of awareness raising and assessment tools31; on the other hand the established Reconstruction Cabinet is to become a permanent entity in order to be better prepared and coordinated for future events and enhancing the inclusion of prevention and sustainable development in the reconstruction process. At this moment, this entity has to be prepared for the next hurricane season which concurs with the general elections in September. A governance crisis has to be avoided in the case of a new emergency.

Regarding the UN system, one deficit has been that the interagency emergency team (UNETT) had not yet been established for Stan, and this led to a lack of internal UN coordination. Only UNICEF and PMA had Contingency Plans, not so the other UN agencies. With the support of OCHA, the UN agencies in Guatemala have now prepared an interagency contingency plan for emergencies, applying the cluster system. This plan is to cover recovery, under UNDP guidance. A special characteristic is the inclusion of eleven NGOs specialized in emergency in this process (CARE, OXFAM, Plan International etc.) with the objective to reach dovetailed Plans for Emergency Response. UNETT members, government and these eleven NGOs build a recently established national response team.

Case study: Floods in Bolivia, 2007

Bolivia was heavily affected by floods at the beginning of the current year. A conducted UNDAC mission led to a Flash Appeal published on February 23 incorporating the results of WFP initial food security assessment (compare 2.1.3). WFP had helped the Bolivian government, for this purpose, to elaborate and apply an adapted format used for the collection of data related to food security and other sectors. IFRC had already presented an emergency appeal some days before. Later on, different more specific and profound assessments were used: the ECLAC methodology was applied by a multi-agency expert team. WFP and FAO conducted a common crop and food security supply assessment mission (CFSAM) implying results of WFP rapid food security assessment. FAO/ILO implemented their Joint Livelihood Assessment. Between these parallel missions, coordination between the involved agencies was successful, especially when concerning data used.

Furthermore, the REDLAC rapid assessment was partially applied, first in a joint effort in Santa Cruz, later mainly by the NGO REDLAC members. This effort was neither very broad nor coordinated with the other assessments due to a lack of prepared staff and political incidence. The humanitarian stakeholder, be it governmental, UN or NGO staff, did not know the methodology and were not able to apply it without previous training. Nevertheless the first experiences were good and some NGO started training programmes at the local and departmental levels.

A very positive experience has been made with the involvement of recovery specialists in all

31 Apart from the above mentioned manual for water and sanitation, CONRED developed a manual for journalists “Podemos ac- Apart from the above mentioned manual for water and sanitation, CONRED developed a manual for journalists “Podemos ac-tuar” (“We can act”) with support from UNICEF, PAHO and others to foster awareness raising and preparedness in communities at risk (in Spanish and three Mayan languages). This manual shall be promoted by CONRED, key ministries (health, education) and others. It comprises the following issues for recovery: awareness raising, organization, health, water and sanitation, nutrition, protection, education, mental health and donations.


phases of the post-disaster situation. From the beginning a UNDP/BCPR team tried to introduce recovery aspects in response (e.g. cooperation with UNDAC for the Flash Appeal) and supported the government in the identification of recovery needs. Until today, some experts are working with the national government and some departmental authorities.

The comprehensiveness and effectiveness of the recovery process has been hindered by inner-governmental conflicts between ministries and levels (national and departmental) due to political reasons. Even though, in 2006, a recovery plan had already been established after floods defining criteria, mechanisms and guidelines for recovery between UN System and the government, it took a lot of time in 2007 to establish the new one (presented on March 21). The reasons were the change of government and the ad-hoc and very complicated administration of the new government. Another challenge was the lacking capacities of the Bolivian government to effectively compile and process collected data for further use. As a consequence different agencies have started long-term support to improve these and other institutional capacities.

Some lessons learnt from Bolivia are:

Clear division of institutional responsibilities between the national and departmental •and municipal level is useful in efficient and effective response and recovery.

Short-term assessments and mechanisms are required to start with appropriate and •timely recovery measures especially those concerning infrastructure development.

Coordination is crucial to help respond to the government’s multiple requests. •

Consensus and coordination between the stakeholders is required for conducting •specialised needs assessments timely. These evaluations should be as short as possible and assess impacts, recovery priorities and the costs of reconstruction.

Government and international funds and mechanisms are necessary to allow for a •short-term financing of assessments and implementation of recovery activities.

Having a vision for recovery vision during the response phase is useful in a smooth •transition from response to recovery activities. This can only be achieved through awareness raising and capacity building of actors in the UN system, the government and other involved stakeholders.

Institutional capacity enhancement is required at the national as well as decentralised •level, for tasks such as data processing and interpretation.

2.2.2.2 Lessons and gaps in recovery needs assessment

The experiences of Guatemala, Bolivia and other countries, as well as regional initiatives, lead to the following lessons learnt relevant to recovery needs assessment:

The wording and timing referring to the different post-disaster phases are not a. homogeneous. “Early recovery or short-term rehabilitation” is used by some humanitarian organizations in order to define activities going beyond mere emergency response (e.g. dispensing of seeds). In Latin America, recovery (Spanish: recuperación) covers rehabilitation and reconstruction. The line between emergency response, rehabilitation and reconstruction is not always clear and depends on the concrete event, the specific local process including the self-help capacities of the affected population, and the efficiency of the governmental


administration varying inclusively between sectoral ministries.

There is an imminent gap concerning recovery, in-between emergency response activities b. and long-term reconstruction and development programmes. Response often lacks any follow-up and leaves the affected communities unattended after the first months.

It is necessary to combine rapid overview methodologies with more detailed livelihood and c. sectoral assessments to comply with the requirements of the different phases and actors. The application of methodologies should be coordinated and oriented towards compiling the most relevant and highest quality data in the shortest possible time period.

Post-disaster needs assessment methodologies are useful as far as they offer tools that d. can be adapted and combined according to the concrete circumstances. Each situation is unique and the priority is to reach a common and comprehensive vision among the involved actors. The methodologies should therefore be seen as an important contribution to the dialogue between the affected population, the governmental institutions and helping organizations in favour of a comprehensive recovery process.

In order to assure a smooth transition between response and recovery, recovery needs e. assessment aspects should be integrated more systematically in the sectoral needs assessment methodologies for emergency response. For Latin America, the validation of the REDLAC methodology could be a starting point due to the variety of organizations involved in this initiative. Another recommendation is to incorporate a recovery expert, from the beginning, in the UNDAC and other rapid assessment teams, as has been successfully done, e.g. in Jamaica 2005 and Bolivia 2007. Finally, raising awareness between the humanitarian actors (governments, UN, donors, NGO) concerning their possibilities to consider recovery aspects during an emergency is essential.

Recovery is primarily a local process. The needs assessments therefore have to be f. established at the community level using a participatory approach. Participation, a common vision and mutual understanding provide the basis for sustainable recovery. The recovery process and the applied methodology should respond to the specific local responsibilities and strengths (e.g. good planning capacities at the municipal level in El Salvador). Nevertheless, currently most assessments are limited to the departmental and municipal level, neglecting the varying demands of affected communities. These are sometimes not able to articulate their needs at the municipal or a higher level.

Advances can be observed in Latin America related to preparedness, response and risk g. reduction, much less related to recovery. Efficiency in response has been improved - by governments as well as by the UN agencies (establishment of UNETT and interagency contingency plans) – via the establishment of pre-disaster preparedness plans and trainings. Recovery aspects and guidelines should be integrated in these pre-disaster efforts by governments and international stakeholders. For the UN agencies this is currently found in the framework of OCHA contingency trainings and the interagency contingency plans. In this pre-disaster context, it is also necessary to identify and agree upon rapid funding mechanisms for post-disaster assessments and programmes.

The benefit of collecting pre-disaster baseline data for recovery needs assessments h. is contended. Meanwhile some actors consider it important in order to facilitate the priorisation and development orientation of recovery measures; others doubt the cost-


benefit-relation due to the rapid changes in data (e.g. availability and prices of goods, housing or health equipment) and the depletion of the population. Nevertheless, an overview of the existing baseline data and good pre-disaster hazard, vulnerability and risk analysis are required for the recovery needs assessment. In this context it is worth mentioning the CEPREDENAC projects improving the dialogue with scientific-technical teams in each of the Central American countries with the objective to systematise the existing information related to hazards, vulnerabilities and disaster risks.

Disaster risk reduction has not yet been incorporated systematically in recovery processes. i. This is firstly due to the government’s priority for rapid and visible solutions at the cost of more sustainable processes that could address the root causes of the disaster. But also the existing methodologies still do not sufficiently factor in risk factor considerations. An exception is ECLAC methodology that has incorporated, during the last years, risk reduction criteria for the reconstruction of infrastructure. Nevertheless, the consideration in methodologies is not the main problem. The fundamental obstacle for risk reducing recovery is the lack of related awareness, vision and capacity among the involved national and international staff. Currently, in many cases vulnerability is higher after reconstruction that it was before the disaster.

In many countries the biggest challenge in post-disaster recovery processes lies in the j. weakness of the national government. This weakness concerns a lack of development vision required for a coherent recovery process, vague or not implemented assignation of responsibilities between institutions, deficient conceptual and technical capacities as well as non-satisfying coordination mechanisms. Due to these deficiencies, the governments are overwhelmed by the emergency and unable to assume the leadership of a coordinated and development-oriented recovery process. Likewise, the UN system is often not prepared to assume this role if requested or necessary. To improve recovery it is therefore of paramount importance to build up national and UN capacities.

Within the UN system general responsibilities for the different recovery sectors exist. k. Nevertheless, in the end, the contributions depend on which agencies are present in the affected country or area.

Gender has been accepted as a cross-cutting issue in the applied methodologies. The l. consequences of being a cross-cutting issue are often not clearly defined.

Data collection is mostly done by the governments, especially in the first emergency m. phase. This data is used by the UN system as well as by the NGO and donor organizations. In case of governmental deficiencies, especially related to availability and quality of local staff, the ministries are supported by these actors via financial funds or own staff (e.g. UNV, FAO, PAHO).

There is a lack of coordination between the sectors and actors involved in recovery, n. especially at the national level. The governments are often not able to assume this coordination with the consequence that assessments as well as interventions are isolated and uncoordinated. They cause duplication as well as gaps, and neglect risk-reducing elements. Furthermore, the multitude of uncoordinated assessments leads to a deep frustration among the affected population, especially if they see no response to the identified demands.


Important initiatives to involve NGOs in coordination mechanisms, be it at the national o. (e.g. Guatemala) or regional (e.g. REDLAC) level, exist and have proven to be very helpful. For efficiency and quality of the recovery process, the UN system needs to intensify the cooperation with these NGOs.

Most donor organizations do not have their own recovery needs assessment methodology. p. They use certain criteria or guidelines but rely, as far as the needs identification is concerned, on the information provided by the government, the UN system and traditional entities (e.g. IADB, ECHO, GTZ). They mostly have or send short-term or long-term staff in the region to accompany or guide the identification process. Only some NGOs with broad local presence use their own methodology (e.g. Oxfam)


3 Conclusion and Recommendations for PDNA

To conclude, recovery needs assessments have multiple uses, from resource mobilisation to multi-stakeholder coordination, recovery planning and monitoring. In a disaster time line these assessments are sandwiched between emergency and reconstruction assessment, which have fairly recognised and well established methodologies in the humanitarian sector. More recently due to a renewed recognition of recovery in facilitating the transition from relief to rehabilitation and the recent humanitarian reform and cluster approach to humanitarian action, there is much interest in developing recovery assessment methods to guide recovery planning.

Some efforts in conducting recovery assessments and designing recovery focused and relevant methodologies are already underway. However in the midst of these developments and lessons emerging from their use there remains a gap. A gap in coordinating assessments of different recovery actors; identifying cross-cutting needs related to gender, governance, recovery capacity, information management and communication; analyzing priority recovery needs of the affected and designing and adapting recovery efforts timely. This gap could be filled by the PDNA framework and other recovery preparedness activities of humanitarian actors. With a view to filling this gap, this review helped generate the following recommendations related to the design and development, buy-in, adaptation and capacity building for the PDNA framework:

3.1 Design and Development The PDNA is packaged as a framework. This is crucial given the specialised nature of different ••sectoral assessment and agency specific methods being currently used and developed by recovery actors. The PDNA framework like the OCHA’s Needs Analysis Framework (NAF) ought to be perceived as having an ‘analysis’ rather than only an ‘assessment’ focus. Also like the NAF it will include the following package to satisfy the needs of different recovery stakeholders:

Guidelines for•� composite analysis of different recovery need assessments. This would be in acknowledgement of the different sector and organization specific assessments that may be conducted by stakeholders both horizontally and vertically. Accepted frameworks for assessment like ECLAC may provide a structure and outline for these sectors. The guidelines should also provide format and design suggestions for a system for collating and analyzing findings of recovery needs assessments conducted by different actors.

Format for conducting and reporting Rapid Recovery Needs Assessments (RRNA) •�at the local level. This can be used in areas where there are gaps in assessments and or by stakeholders who do not have existing tools for multi-sectoral recovery assessment. A format should be designed to help aggregate local findings through the RRNAs at the sub-regional, regional and national levels.

Checklists for covering cross-cutting themes •� that are usually not mainstreamed in assessment methodologies, as developed in the case of gender in another deliverable of PDNA’s Phase I. Specifically include checklist for mainstreaming governance, recovery information management, disaster risk reduction etc. Checklist for governance could include guidelines for setting up appropriate institutional arrangements at the


national level (pre-disaster as well as post-disaster ad-hoc scenarios), refer to UNDP/BCPR recovery guidelines;

Format for developing •� an Integrated Recovery Framework (IRF) and an associated Integrated Plan of Action (IPA) for all recovery stakeholders at the national level. This would be based on the findings of the assessments conducted individually or collectively, but analyzed collectively. It would be led by the national government and help build a ‘coordinated action’ element in recovery operations.

Information management tool•� for mapping recovery needs, capacities and gaps across the recovery time line. This may be built in lines of the 3W tool being used by OCHA’s NAF and UNICEF’s MRA methodology.

Roster of recovery assessment and analysis team•� members segregated based on stakeholder representation, regional and local experience and knowledge and sector specific technical capacities.

Training packages•� (pre-disaster and post disaster rapid refresher versions) for the rapid recovery assessment team and the recovery analysis teams.

PDNA represents an approach to be applied during different agency and inter-agency ••assessments rather than an additional and specific methodology. The PDNA framework should therefore aspire for raising awareness and generating dialogue for coordination among recovery stakeholders. It should focus on building awareness about recovery relevant data and information needs through provision of guidelines, principles and formats. The PDNA framework should promote complementary use of general or multi-sectoral methodologies (e.g. REDLAC or FAO/ILO livelihood) with sector specific instruments in order to produce a comprehensive analysis of needs.

It is to projected as a •• dynamic framework that is a part of the assessment continuum (from emergency to reconstruction) and that guides the process for recovery assessments at different levels. It should be viewed as an analysis framework that provides a coordinated picture of recovery needs at a given time. The framework should promote the participation of recovery specialists in emergency response assessments and strengthen recovery elements in response assessments. Also, recovery assessments and analysis should aim at providing a snapshot of recovery needs, based on which detailed assessments may be carried out by different actors with different recovery mandates and capacities. The assessment should also acknowledge and use baseline data from pre-disaster sources like comprehensive disaster risk assessments. This is critical to factor longer term risk reduction initiatives and resources in recovery planning.

The PDNA •• design is to:

Include production of simple, short and clear tools and guidelines that can be used by •�different local actors (government and non-government) with varying understanding of recovery. This should include FAQs and visual tools like flowcharts, cycles and tables.

Provide operational definitions of concepts including•�

- clear and mutually agreed definition of recovery and its difference and relationship with emergency, rehabilitation, reconstruction and preparedness. The definition for recovery should also include the period for which early recovery needs are typically identified. Usually this period is up to six months or


one year after the disaster.32

- difference between damage, loss, needs and recovery requirements.

- difference between recovery demands, needs and standards (based on disaster risk reduction and development standards and goals at the national and international level).

- definition of local actors, which should not stop at national and local government bodies, but include civil society organizations that work closely with the affected communities, before, during and after the disaster.

References of existing and emerging methodologies and tools for recovery •�assessments.

Case examples and additional resources in the annexes. For example, participatory •�and community based assessment tools; scenarios based on real experiences during past assessments and PDNA piloting.

The •• scope, purpose and limitations of the PDNA must be clarified at the outset. It should be seen as a tool that helps provide a broad sketch of recovery needs and capacities in different sectors at the national level, rather than a desegregated and detailed chart of recovery needs at local areas. If PDNA’s rapid assessment tool is used it should be executed in a way that it helps guide future detailed and ongoing assessments of recovery and reconstruction needs by different local and sector specific actors. It should also be used to identify the secondary victims of a disaster. For example, livelihood sectors that are directly affected by the disaster also have a significant impact on ancillary livelihood groups that they once supported. Increasing cases of HIV after the Indian Ocean tsunami was a consequence of the psycho-social impact of the disaster and thus a trend that could only be captured after the rapid needs assessment.

The key to a comprehensive PDNA is •• coordination among stakeholders and synergy between methodologies. Coordination and information sharing is crucial for an effective and holistic assessment and recovery process. During pre-disaster contingency planning or post-disaster emergency response, coordination mechanisms between government, the UN system and civil society actors should be built. This coordination mechanism should be institutionalized and involve all the stakeholders who have the

responsibility and influence on the recovery process (national government, UN •�agencies, donors, NGO etc.);

knowledge on basic needs, priorities and cultural context of the affected population •�(local leaders, NGO, local governments etc.);

sector-specific knowledge and interests (government ministries/departments, UN •�agencies, NGOs, scientific and non-scientific institutions etc.);

expertise on disaster risk reduction and cross-cutting issues.•�

This coordination mechanism should help to:

determine priorities of the PDNA process (time lines, expected outputs, thematic •�priorities etc.);

identify data needs and resources as well as the most appropriate methodologies to •�

32 According to UNDP/BCPR Recovery Guidelines (2005) and the IASC Early Recovery Guidance Note (2007).


be combined and applied for the gathering and processing the information;

establish clear communication channels between specific actors in favour of improved •�synergy and effectiveness (e.g. working groups) including responsibilities, resources and capacities

identify and fill gaps in coordination (e.g. information management systems between •�stakeholders) and sectoral and cross-cutting assessments (e.g. social aspects)

link more detailed local priorities with aggregated national needs and processes;•�

establish a common monitoring mechanism to adapt the proceedings to changing •�circumstances or priorities, from emergency response and early recovery until reconstruction and development.

The basic characteristics of this coordination mechanism are best convened as a part of pre-disaster planning. At the minimum the UN agencies and the national governments could set up a pre-disaster coordination framework with possible participation of other stakeholders. This coordination system must be closely linked with, if not a part of the emergency response coordination mechanisms. The PDNA framework should capture good practice examples to help transference of coordination related lessons.

The •• guidelines for the assessment should clarify the following among other components:

The function of the assessment: •� All assessment exercises and reports should clarify its intended function, that is, to which degree will it answer the following questions for stakeholders: whether to intervene; the nature and scale of the intervention; prioritization and allocation of resources; and programme design and planning.

Timing for the assessment: •� Conduct recovery needs assessment once emergency needs are beginning to be addressed. Many recovery needs will be addressed by local actors while they are receiving emergency assistance. On an average rapid recovery needs could be identified within three weeks after the disaster. The timing of the rapid assessment should also be based on the needs of the affected communities rather than the funding mandate of donors. This will help address the issue of assessments creating a need and demand based on supply (prompted by donors).

Scope of the assessment: •� It should cover the three elements of a) situational analysis, b) recovery needs and c) recovery capacity. These should be mapped simultaneously to compute the requirements for recovery assistance. The assessment should not just identify direct needs of people like shelter, water and sanitation, food, livelihoods, but also indirect recovery needs like timely recovery entitlement and opportunity information, recovery implementation capacity and requirements of the government etc.

National context: •� The PDNA should be adapted to the national context, for example, the institutional setting and capacities, the presence of UN agencies and development agencies, the disaster risk profile and lessons from earlier disasters. This will help determine the choice of methodologies.

Assessment team design:•� It should have a mix of people with experience in disaster recovery (in varied contexts), local development, disaster management and knowledge of the local context. The capacity of local academic institutions should be used to conduct field assessments and build databases. For example, engineering


instructions can help with shelter and infrastructural assessments, schools of social work with community based social needs assessment etc.

Involvement of the media:•� Involving the media in plans for assessments and disseminating its findings will help communicate the results to different donors internationally and nationally. As a part of pre-disaster preparedness the media could be involved in assessment related trainings. MoU may be worked out with news agencies to work with them after a disaster for identifying recovery needs rather than covering news worthy information on challenges alone.

Cross-sectoral and cross cutting issue: •� Different stakeholders and sectoral actors should plan and conduct their assessments in a manner that the cross sectoral approaches and thematic areas like gender, governance, environment, human rights, information management, communication are covered. In cases where these are not covered efforts should be made to use data variables that are comparable across sectors and issues. Reference to methodologies and handbooks that have mainstreamed cross-cutting issues should be included in the PDNA. For example the UNICEF’s Emergency Field Handbook, the ECLAC handbook etc.

Mainstreaming risk reduction and development needs: G•� iven the window of opportunity for change after a disaster, stakeholders are in a position of strength to use the international development goals (MDGs), national development standards and risk reduction measures for identifying recovery needs. The inclusion of risk reduction and development needs during response and recovery is largely dependent on the development vision of the decision makers. Thus, guidance and good practices for this should be included as a part of the PDNA guide. This should be complemented with pre- and post-disaster preparedness efforts for building institutional capacities in risk reduction and development planning.

Identification of vulnerable communities: •� Assessments must acknowledge traditional social structures within which recovery needs emerge and need to be addressed. Focus of the recovery assessment should be on identifying affected groups that were overlooked during the first round of emergency needs assessments.

PDNA’s rapid recovery needs assessment:•� It should be conducted at the local administrative level, under the leadership of the government, and by a multi-stakeholder team. In the words of an interviewee, “recovery assessment teams should support the local administrators and fill gaps, not conduct the needs assessment.” These assessments should be collated at the provincial, state and national level under the PDNA framework. This will help capture disaggregated and detailed data for local level recovery programming and aggregated data for national level resource mobilisation.

National and Local partnerships:•� Local NGOs that are a part of the development landscape of any society must be involved in recovery assessment teams. Collaboration between national and local actors is mutually beneficial during assessments, given the former’s capacity to raise external resources and latter’s long-term presence in and understanding of the local culture, language and needs. The assessment could also pave way for recovery partnerships and local actors acting as long term agents for mainstreaming DRR in recovery and monitoring recovery progress. However, it is important to note that sub-contracting civil society actors (including NGOs) is


not enough for local level assessments. The participation of these local actors in conducting assessments and developing recovery activities should be given equal importance.

Direct participation of affected communities•� : This should be planned to ensure:

representation of the affected community’s ‘actual’ rather than ‘assumed’ needs; a. identification of isolated and unattended communities; b. understanding of their recovery capacities which should be built on rather than c. replaced by external recovery actors; and their involvement in the recovery process and feedback to recovery stakeholders d. on changing recovery needs.

Such participation may be made possible by guided surveys of selected communities in the affected areas. The advice of local NGOs working in the area should be sought to identify sample communities for such surveys. The TEC’s methodology for conducting community surveys may be referred to by the PDNA. Such a survey will only give a generic picture of recovery needs and should be followed up with detailed surveys with the support of local actors like government authorities and NGOs. Other participatory assessment methodologies and tools being used during pre-disaster risk assessments should be used where possible. Resources being produced by the IFRC/ProVention Consortium on social dimensions of assessments should guide recovery assessments.

Data collection and processing•� : It is essential for the government to have at its disposal good baseline data, as this information in conjunction with the damage and loss data will clarify recovery needs and serve as a basis for recovery planning. If the government has difficulties in processing such data, contingency planning efforts should take cognizance of this and support capacity building initiatives. The contingency plans should also review data availability and collection mechanisms and lists of baseline data sets at the national and sub-national levels. This should consciously include previous risk assessment data generated by different actors.

Preparedness activities:•� Like UNICEF’s MRA and OCHA’s NAF, PDNA too should identify assessment relevant preparedness activities through the design of a checklist in its guide. This checklist should be developed in partnership with other agencies involved in recovery preparedness activities, like the WB, IFRC, ILO, UNDP. Lists of recovery relevant questions for emergency assessments and the potential interface with information tools like DevInfo should also be developed as a part of recovery preparedness.

Dissemination of initial and emerging recovery needs: •� This should be a part of the assessment planning. Reports should be placed on the websites of agencies and information coordination centres set up before or after a disaster. Forums such as coordination meetings (at the district, state or national levels), should be actively used to disseminate and further clarify needs, map existing capacities, draw linkages between recovery initiatives and identify additional areas for detailed assessments.

Strengthening of recovery capacities•� : Capacity building should be part of recovery assessments. This could include capacities related to conducting assessments, mapping data, analyzing and maintaining it in a database to help monitor recovery progress. The focus should be on building local and national capacities of the


government and civil society actors.

Role in monitoring: •� Assessments should consciously acknowledge their role in monitoring recovery progress. As a part of situational analysis each assessment should take stock of the recovery progress (who is doing what), before moving to mapping emerging recovery needs. Each progressive recovery assessment should use the need related findings in the last assessment to monitor the recovery progress and identify the following categories of needs:

un-met needs (identified in an earlier assessment but not met until the latest a. assessment);

residual needs (unidentified during last assessment); and b.

new needs (emerging needs) c.

The needs identified in the assessment should be seen as benchmarks for recovery programmes and projects.

As a part of its development the PDNA guide and tools should be piloted in two to three ••countries in each region for a period of one to two years. One of the criteria for selecting the country should be varying levels of recovery capacity. The pilot process should be marked with regular feedback workshops and an end of the pilot global evaluation. Intermediately the pilot framework tools should be made available to different countries for use, testing and feedback.

PDNA’s design should take cognizance of the other frameworks and tools being developed ••at the corporate level and piloted at the country level. This includes tools like the Needs Analysis Framework (NAF) and the REDLAC methodology for emergency needs or the simplified ECLAC sector wise guidelines for reconstruction needs.

Past experiences related to the use of the PDNA should be regularly documented and ••used for trainings and the revision and adaptation of the PDNA at the global and national level.

3.2 Buy-in, Adaptation and Capacity Building Awareness regarding recovery concepts and opportunities needs to be raised amongst ••different actors at the international, regional and national level. This should include the UN system, government actors and civil society actors. This should be complemented by building disaster risk reduction capacity and measures for mainstreaming it in recovery through both pre- and post-disaster efforts.

Process of developing and owning the assessment method is as if not more crucial than ••producing a good assessment method. Thus the PDNA development process should be participative and in support of the humanitarian cluster approach. The UNDP could learn from UNICEF’s strategy for its MRA, in developing the first draft of the framework based on its core competency in the area of recovery and then reach to other global actors for sector and area specific inputs. NGOs and non UN stakeholders should be involved in the process.


The PDNA must be contextualized and institutionalised at the national level. The aim of ••the PDNA process should be to initiate a dialogue on recovery and to help each country develop its own PDNA based on the local context, capacities and needs. The PDNA team should work with emerging ‘recovery preparedness’ initiatives at the national level like IASC contingency planning processes, international projects on pre-disaster recovery planning by ILO/UNDP and WB’s project on national recovery assessment capacity building (using the ECLAC methodology). Institutionalizing the PDNA in the contingency planning process (as planned for the PDNA in Bangladesh) and other government systems should be the goal of these national and international efforts. The UN interagency contingency plans and OCHA contingency training programmes should consciously factor recovery needs.

A uniform understanding of recovery is a pre-requisite for a successful joint needs ••assessment. This understanding should be built before disasters as a part of contingency planning efforts.

The PDNA framework’s launch and adaptation should be complimented with building ••international and local understanding of the PDNA and capacities of people who would be using the framework.

A dedicated budget should be allocated for awareness and capacity building. The •�focus should be on governments and local actors like universities, NGOs and the media, thus capitalizing on the resources that all these bring on board.

Pre-disaster activities should include PDNA trainings, maintaining a roster of •�assessment personnel and enter into MoUs with agencies that could potentially become a part of the post-disaster recovery needs assessment.

A rapid two day training module should also be prepared for local members of the •�PDNA assessment teams, who may not have been trained before the disaster. This 2 day training could be made a part of the assessment team’s planning schedule and could act as a refresher for those members who have been trained in the past.

Experiences and lessons related to the use of the PDNA should be systematically captured ••not only to adapt and improve the PDNA, but also help create buy-in in new areas and amongst new actors.


References

Methods and Tools:

ADPC. 2000. Post-Disaster Damage and Needs Analysis. 2nd Draft.

AIDMI. 2005. Community Damage and Demand Analysis Tool. Experience Learning Series – 33.

CARE International. 2007. Accountability & Standards Benchmarks for Humanitarian Responses, draft January 2007.

Early Recovery Cluster in Bangladesh. 2007. Post Disaster Damage and Needs Assessment (PDNA) Tool for Early Recovery.

Early Recovery Cluster in Bangladesh. 2007. Guiding notes for PDNA on Early Recovery.

ECBG. 2007. The Good Enough Guide: Impact measurement and accountability in emergencies, London.

FAO/ILO. 2007. Integrated Livelihood Assessment Guidelines: A tool kit for rapid analysis and response to the impact of disasters on the livelihoods of people. Working draft February 2007, Rome/Geneva.

FAO/WFP. 1996. Crop and food supply assessment mission guidelines.

Global Health Cluster. 2007. Rapid Health Assessment Guidelines. Draft version.

Government of Vietnam. 2006. Guidelines for Natural Disaster Damage and Need Assessment

Human Rights Commission (HRC), Colombo University and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Sri Lanka. 2005. The Report on People’s Consultations on post Tsunami Relief, Reconstruction and Rehabilitation in Sri Lanka.

IASC. 2006. Drat Multi-sectoral Rapid Assessment for the first 72 hours after rapid onset emergency: An interagency toolkit.

IASC. Guidelines for HIV/AIDS Interventions in Emergency Settings

IASC CAP Sub working Group. 2007. Needs Analysis Framework: Strengthening the analysis and presentation of humanitarian needs in the CAP. (Version 2)

IASC Uganda. 2007. Rapid Assessment of Critical Needs Format for Assessment.

IASC Uganda. 2007. Rapid Assessment of Critical Needs Format for Report.

IASC Cluster Working Group on Early Recovery. 2007. Early Recovery Guidance Note.

IFRC. June 2007. Guidance Note on Rapid Recovery Needs Assessment following a quick onset disaster. First Draft. IFRC, Geneva.

IFRC. October 2005. Guidelines for Emergency Assessment. IFRC, Geneva.

Mercy Corps. 2007. Rapid Assessment Questionnaire.

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Department of Dyke Management, Flood & Storm Control and UNDP Vietnam.

Naciones Unidas. 2006. Marco de Recuperación Temprana.

OCHA. 2007. Matriz de preparación para las Agencias de las Naciones Unidas, draft versión

OPS. 2003. Preparativos de salud para situationes de desastres. Guía para el nivel local. Serie Manuales y Guías sobre Desastres No. 3.

OPS. 2004. Manual de evaluación de daños y necesidades en salud para situaciones de desastre. Serie Manuales y Guías sobre Desastres No. 4.


OPS. 2006. Guía práctica de salud mental en situacfiones de desastres. Serie Manuales y Guías sobre Desastres No. 7.

OXFAM. 2006. Food Security Assessment in Emergencies: A Livelihoods Approach.

PNUD. Directrices para la recuperación posdesastre.

REDLAC. 2006. Methodology Rapid Assessment for Humanitarian Assistance, final version.

UNDP/BCPR. 2005. Terms of Reference Needs Assessment for Post-earthquake Early Recovery in Pakistan.

UNDP/BCPR. 2007. Post-disaster recovery guidelines.

UNDP/BCPR-LAC. 2007. Matrix for the incorporation of the early recovery component in the Inter Agency Emergency Response Plan of the United Nations System, Panama.

UN ECLAC. 2003. Handbook for Estimating the Socio-Economic and Environmental Effects of Disasters. Vol. I, II, III and IV. Version 2003.

UN ECLAC. 2004. Disaster Assessment Training Material Manual for Caribbean Small Island States.

UNEP. 2007. Development of a post-disaster environmental needs assessment practical guide. Draft concept note.

UNHCR/WFP. 2004. Joint Assessment Guidelines.

United Nations. 2006. The UN System Early Recovery Framework

United Nations. Fact Sheet. Restoring Lives – The United Nations Early Recovery Framework.

UNICEF. 2005. Emergency Field Handbook. A guide for UNICEF staff. New York 2007.

WFP. 2005. Emergency Food Security Assessment (EFSA) Handbook.

Assessment reports and contextualized frameworks:

ADB, UN and World Bank. Feb 2005. Post tsunami recovery program: Preliminary Damage and Needs Assessment. India.

CEPAL/SEGEPLAN. 2005. Efectos en Guatemala de las lluvias torrenciales y la tormenta tropical Stan, octubre de 2005.

Gobierno de la República de Guatemala/PNUD. 2006. Documento de Proyecto “Programa de Reducción de Riesgos en el proceso de Reconstrucción del Habitat comunitario”

Herson, Maurice. 2005. Asia Earthquakes and Tsunami real time evaluation for Federation of red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

IASC Occupied Palestinian Territories. 2005. Needs Analysis Framework.

IFRC. 2006. Linking Relief, recovery and Risk Reduction: Needs Assessment in the International Federation’s Yogyakarta and Central Java Earthquake Response Operation.

IFRC. 2007. Bolivia Floods Emergency Appeal, February 15.

OCHA. Bolivia Flash Appeal 2007, February 23

OCHA. Guatemala Flash Appeal 2005, October 14

TISS, University of Srinagar and Action Aid. 2005. The Jammu and Kashmir Earthquake: Damage and Needs Assessment Report. Books for Change, India.

UNDP/ECLAC. 2005. Guyana. Socio-economic assessment of the damages and losses caused by the January-February 2005 flooding.

United Nations System in Pakistan and Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. 2006.EERA- UN


Early Recovery Plan for Pakistan. ERRA and IASC Country Team

World Bank, ADB and UN system. 2005. Tsunami Impact and Recovery Joint Needs Assessment in Maldives.

Evaluation and Lessons Learnt documents:

ADPC. 2005. Message from Asian Disaster Preparedness Center to the International Seminar on Recovery and IRP Stakeholders Meeting (11 to 13 May 2005)

de Ville de Goyet, C & L Morinière. 2006. The role of needs assessment in the tsunami response. London: Tsunami Evaluation Coalition.

IASC Uganda. 2007. Uganda Needs Assessment Workshop Report. IASC CAP sub working Group. 2006. Draft NAF Implementation Plan for Burundi: Recommendations for Second NAF.

IASC CAP sub working group. 2006. NAF Analysis and Feedback from the five pilot countries.

IFRC/ProVention Consortium. 2007. Strengthening the Social Analysis Component in Rapid Impact and Vulnerability Assessment. Report of workshop held 29-31 January 2007 in Panama.

TISS. 2005. The State and Civil Society in Disaster Response: An Analysis of the Tamil Nadu Tsunami Experience. TISS, Mumbai, India.

UNDP/BCPR-LAC. 2005. Lecciones aprendidas en los procesos de recuperación y desarrollo posdesastre en América Latina y el Caribe, Bogotá.

Others:

Darcy,J & Hofmann,C. 2003. Needs assessment and decision-making in the humanitarian sector. London: Humanitarian Policy Group, Overseas Development Institute.

ILO, UNDP, ISDR. 2007. Pre disaster Recovery Planning Project Document.

REDLAC. 2006. Inventario de herramientas e instrumentos para la Evaluación Rápida en Eventos Adversos, Panamá.


Annexes

Annex 1: List of interviewees

No Name Organization Contact details

1 Kamal Kishore UNDP

BCPR (S&SW Asia)

[email protected]

2 Sanny Ramos Jegillos UNDP’s Regional Centre in Bangkok [email protected]

3 Loy Rego Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre (ADPC)

[email protected]

4 Arghya ADPC [email protected]

5 Claude de Ville Tsunami Evaluation Coalition Consultant for needs assessment study

[email protected] [email protected]

6 Saroj Jha World Bank, Washington [email protected]

7 Smruti Patel Tsunami Evaluation Coalition Consultant for overall study

[email protected] [email protected]

8 Mihir Bhatt AIDMI, India [email protected]

9 G Padmanabhan UNDP India [email protected]

10 Mili Maria Thomas UNDP India [email protected]

11 Rachel Scott Leflaive UN OCHA Geneva [email protected]

12 SV Anil Das ADB India [email protected]

13 Ysabel Fougery UN OCHA Geneva [email protected]

14 CM Muralidharan FAO India [email protected]

15 Thomas George UNICEF India [email protected]

16 Saji Thomas UNICEF India [email protected]

17 K. M Parivelan Tamil Nadu Tsunami Resouce Centre (TNTRC), India

[email protected]

18 Nalini Keshavaraj TNTRC, India [email protected]

19 S. S. Jaideep Action Aid, India [email protected]

20 Suresh Mariaselvam TNTRC, India [email protected]

21 T. Shyam Sunder Christian Aid, India [email protected]

22 Richard Wurmbrand Save the Children Fund, India [email protected]

23 Feby Bradley Thompson

TNTRC [email protected]

24 Asuntha Oxfam GB [email protected]

25 Banu Oxfam GB [email protected] and [email protected]

26 Brian Smith (ex) ABD Sri Lanka [email protected]



27 Ramraj Narsimhan Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre [email protected]

28 Rajendrakumar Ganesarajah

UNDP Sri Lanka [email protected]

29 Man Thapa UNDP Sri Lanka [email protected]

30 Tissa Abeywickrama RC Movement Task Force

Sri Lanka Red Cross Society

[email protected]

31 Rachel Perera Reconstruction and

Development Agency (RADA) Sri Lanka

[email protected]

32 Tarik Islam UNDP, Bangladesh [email protected]

33 Dr. Aslam Alam CDMP, Bangladesh [email protected]

34 Sadrul Ameen UNDP, Bangladesh [email protected]

35 Mohsena Ferdausi Ministry of Food and Disaster Management, Government of Bangladesh

36 Rehana Banoo WFP Bangladesh [email protected]

37 Zulfikur A. Khan UNICEF Bangladesh [email protected]

38 Qazi Khaze Alam Proshika Bangladesh [email protected]

39 Shamima Moin ICDDR, Bangladesh [email protected]

40 Armana Ahmed ICDDR, Bangladesh [email protected]

41 Usman Qazi UNDP Pakistan [email protected]

42 Rita Missal UNDP Maldives [email protected]

43 Roberto Jovel World Bank, Washington [email protected]

44 Ahmed Zaki World Bank, Indonesia [email protected]

45 Cynthia Burton IFRC Geneva [email protected]

46 Haris Sanahuja ISDR Regional Office Central America [email protected]

47 Gerard Gomez OCHA Panama [email protected]

48 Marie-Louise Belanger

OCHA Panama [email protected]

49 Claudio Osorio UNICEF Panama [email protected]

50 Ivan Yerovi UNICEF Panama [email protected]

51 Alejandro Santander PAHO Central America [email protected]

52 Angeles Arenas UNDP-BCPR LAC [email protected]

53 Fernando Ramirez UNDP-BCPR LAC [email protected]

54 Stephen McAndrew IFRC-PADRU [email protected]

55 Dario Alvarez IFRC-PADRU [email protected]



56 Roberto Carrillo UNDP Guatemala [email protected]

57 Julián Duarte UNICEF Guatemala [email protected]

58 Douglas Reimer OCHA/REDLAC [email protected]

59 José Luis Loarca OCHA Guatemala [email protected]

60 Rosario Castro PAHO Guatemala [email protected]

61 David Smith CEPREDENAC [email protected]

62 Hugo Hernández CONRED [email protected]

63 Jessica Solano CONRED [email protected]

64 Ian Cherrett FAO Guatemala [email protected]

65 Hugues Burrows ECHO Guatemala [email protected]

66 Michael Collins IADB Guatemala [email protected]

67 Eduardo Aguirre Vicepresidency Guatemala [email protected]

68 Maribel Carrera Oxfam GB Guatemala [email protected]

69 Ricardo Berganza USAID/OFDA [email protected]

70 Alois Kohler GTZ Guatemala/ El Salvador [email protected]

71 Margarita Lovón WFP Latin America margarita.lovó[email protected]

72 Oscar Antezana WFP Bolivia [email protected]

73 Marco Antonio Rodríguez

Recovery specialist Bolivia [email protected]

74 Antonio Cruciani ILO Geneva [email protected]

75 Ian O’Donnell ProVention Geneva [email protected]


Annex 2: Information Sheet

Review of Post Disaster Recovery Needs Assessment

Methodologies and Practices

1. Background to the PDNA Review

A range of humanitarian actors including national governments, the UN system, international financial institutions, donors, INGOs and local NGOs are engaged in post-disaster recovery operations. There interventions in recovery are guided by recovery needs assessment exercises, conducted independently or jointly by some actors. The methodology, time line, processes and systems for such recovery needs assessments are markedly varied across actors. Such variations in methods lead to variations in outputs, which are not compatible and often present conflicting images of needs. These conflicts lead to coordination challenges, both between the recovery agencies and with recovery donors. This situation has warranted the need for developing a comprehensive and system-wide recovery needs assessment framework, which may be used by different recovery actors to conduct joint and independent assessments.

Both the International Recovery Platform (IRP) and the IASC Cluster Working Group on Early Recovery (CWGER) have identified the need for the developing Post Disaster Recovery Needs Assessment (PDNA) methodology, guidelines and toolkit in their work plans. Such a framework will help coordinate recovery efforts across different sectors (shelter, livelihoods, governance, environment, gender etc.) and with a risk reduction focus.

In this light the PDNA project has been developed. It is led by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in its capacity as Cluster Lead for Early Recovery and as a part of the IRP and CWGER. Given its long experience in disaster evaluation, an agreement has been entered into with the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLAC) to help design this framework.

In run up to developing the PDNA framework, the UNDP and ECLAC have commissioned this review of existing and emerging recovery needs assessment methodologies at the global and local level by different stakeholders (governments, UN agencies, INGOs, NGOs etc.) and especially in recent disasters in Asia and Latin America. This review will help map existing and emerging methodologies and review lessons related to their use to guide the development of the PDNA framework.

2. Objectives of the PDNA Review:

To provide a comparative overview (commonalities, differences and complementari-a. ties) of existing and emerging post disaster needs assessment methodologies;

To identify lessons related to the application of these methodologies in recent flood, b. tsunami, earthquake and hurricane experiences in Asia and Latin America.

To offer recommendations for developing a comprehensive PDNA. c.

3. Scope of the PDNA Review:

It will focus on recovery ‘needs’ assessments as different from, but linked to recovery ‘damage and loss’ assessments. It will cover the methodologies used by different actors including the


national governments, UN agencies, the World Bank, regional banks (like the ADB), INGOs, local NGOs and others in Asia and Latin America. It will specifically review the methodologies used during rapid onset disasters like earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis and floods.

4. Methodology for the PDNA Review

Desk review • of recovery needs methodologies and linked emergency and reconstruction assessment methods, assessments reports and lessons learnt documents.

Structured Interviews and or Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) • with stakeholders at the global, regional and national level who have been involved in:

Developing and or modifying recovery needs assessment methodologies and 1. tools

Undertaking recovery needs assessments 2.

Using the findings of needs assessments for recovery planning3.

5. Time-frame: April to June 2007


Annex 3: Inquiry points Checklist

For desk review, FGD and semi-structured interviews

BACKGROUND

Name of interviewee/informant ••

Organization••

Relevant/past •�

Current •�

Association with the need assessment:••

Developed/adapted the assessment •�

Conducting assessment•�

Using assessment findings for recovery planning •�

OVERVIEW/ EXPERIENCES OF ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES & TOOLS

I. Context and Planning:

Country ••

Event type and description ••

Link with emergency assessments ••

Part of it •�

Follow-up to it •�

Methodology used ••

Government •�

UN•�

INGO/NGO•�

Other •�

Scale of the assessment ••

Local •�

State/Province •�

National •�

Timing of assessment ••

Early and rapid•�

Detailed•�

Continual •�

II. Content:

Link with damage and loss assessments: ••

How have needs assessments being linked to damage and loss assessments? •�

- Part of it

- Follow-up to it


Link with humanitarian/relief and development phase: ••

How have early recovery needs been identified in emergency assessments? •�

How have early recovery assessments informed long-term recovery and development •�needs?

Have and to which extend the broader development agenda been incorporated in the •�assessment methodology, in particular the MDG’s and poverty reduction (structural and conflict)?

How have the recovery needs been reconciled with the needs related to an ongoing •�conflict in a country?

Sectoral coverage and cross-cutting themes: ••

What sectors have been covered (breadth, depth and thematic choices)?•�

How have cross-cutting themes –particularly gender and human rights in the context •�of social equity been factored?

Is conflict a part of cross-cutting issues? How?•�

Role of stakeholders ••

How have the needs and damage assessment factored in the future role of the •�

Government (national, state and local) •�

Donors•�

UN agencies •�

Civil Society (INGOs, NGOs, CBOs)•�

Affected communities •�

Private sector•�

Mapping capacity: ••

Have and to which extent has the methodology identified capacities to meet recovery •�needs?

How has it factored the capacity (civil service) of the governmental bodies at different •�levels?

Has and to which extent has it defined the role and responsibilities of the state, the •�private sector, NGOs/civil society and communities?

Capacity development needs:••

In which cases and how the damage assessments have evaluated absorptive •�capacity?

Which institutions have been strengthened (or created from scratch) and why? •�

What other steps have been taken to build capacity of recovery stakeholders? •�

Risk mitigation: ••

Have and to which extent has risk mitigation been factored in assessments? •�

Give examples when they have been. •�

What are the challenges and opportunities in factoring risk reduction? •�


III. Process:

Planning for assessment: ••

Choice of methodology•�

Timing (after the disaster) •�

Duration •�

Scope •�

Choice of team members•�

Capacity of team members •�

Stakeholders and Partners•• :

Who and how have the stakeholders been involved in the assessment? •�

- Developed/adapted the assessment

- Conducted the assessment

- Used assessment findings for recovery planning

How has the government participated in the assessment? •�

- Direct- Indirect

- Decentralized or centralized?

How have damage assessments exercises build government ownership from the start •�and assisted building capacities?

Relationship with civil society, NGOs and the community ••

What has been the role of NGOs and civil society in the damage assessment •�process?

How has the trade off between, the need for speed and the need to build ownership •�from stakeholders managed?

How participative have the assessments been?•�

•• Donor coordination and responses.

Describe donor coordination during and after the damage assessment process? •�

Did the assessment process served as a donor coordination tool, and how? •�

Data, indicators, costing and monitoring: ••

What is the ratio of primary and secondary data collected for the assessment? •�

At what level was the data gathered (macro or micro)?•�

Was the data disaggregated? •�

How have needs and damage assessment methodologies address the unavailability •�and/or inaccuracy of baseline data?

Were there inadequate and market distortions prevalent, either because of the influx •�of donors and emergency assistance or distortions generated by the disaster itself?

Are there relevant lessons in the way direct and indirect costs are estimated in •�reconstruction after natural disasters?

Can double counts between the humanitarian and reconstruction phases be identified •�and how were they avoided?

Have any standards been used to identify needs of the affected (national development, •�international like sphere etc.)?


IV Output Presentation: ••

To what extent was the data disaggregated? •�- Administrative levels - Communities (livelihood, gender etc)

How clearly have needs been identified in relation to damage and loss data? •�- Quantitatively - Qualitatively

What are the key recommendations of the needs assessments? •�

How comparable is the presentation to the assessments produced by other •�stakeholders?

Was the product easy to comprehend? •�

Dissemination: ••

When was the assessment carried out and the report produced? •�

How were the findings shared with other stakeholders? •�

V. Outcome What has been the follow-up to the assessments? •�

How has the assessment supported coordination of stakeholders? •�

How and to which extent have the assessments been used to guide recovery planning •�and programming? - What has helped this? - What has challenged this?

Where used, how were realistic and meaningful indicators and monitoring benchmarks ••developed?

KEY TRENDS and LESSONSGaps••

Developing •�

Undertaking •�

Using findings•�

Challenges ••

Developing •�

Undertaking •�

Using findings •�

Opportunities ••

Developing

Undertaking

Using findings

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PDNADesign and development••

Buy-in, adaptation and capacity building ••


Back

grou

nd In

form

atio

nCo

nten

t and

Des

ign

Revi

ewM

etho

dol-

ogy

Sour

ceSt

atus

Use

rsSe

ctor

Tim

e lin

eTo

ols

App

licat

ion

Stre

ngth

sCh

alle

nges

Link

s w

ith

othe

r m

etho

ds

Nam

e (y

ear

of d

evel

op-

men

t and

ad

apta

tion)

Exis

ting

or

Emer

ging

Plan

ned

and

pote

ntia

lSi

ngle

-sec

tor

/ Mul

ti-se

ctor

al

Prev

entio

n m

itiga

tion

prep

ared

ness

/re

spon

se

reha

bilit

atio

n re

cove

ry re

-co

nstru

ctio

n

Gui

delin

es, r

apid

as-

sess

men

t too

l, fo

rmat

fo

r dat

a co

llect

ion,

re

port

ing

etc.

Coun

try

and

Dis

aste

r

RECO

VER

Y FO

CUSS

ED A

SSES

SMEN

T M

ETH

OD

OLO

GIE

S A

ND

TO

OLS

Post

Dis

as-

ter D

amag

e an

d N

eeds

A

sses

smen

t (P

DN

A)

for E

arly

Re

cove

ry in

Ba

ngla

desh

(2

007)

WFP

and

U

ND

P Ba

n-gl

ades

h

emer

ging

U

N a

genc

ies,

de

velo

p-m

ent o

rga-

niza

tions

, go

vern

men

t et

c.

Mul

ti-se

c-to

ral

Reco

very

an

d Pr

e-pa

redn

ess

guid

elin

es, r

apid

as

sess

men

t too

l and

fo

rmat

for d

ata

col-

lect

ion

not a

pplie

dde

sign

ed c

orro

bora

-tiv

ely;

con

text

ualiz

ed to

co

untr

y st

ruct

ures

; lin

ks

with

em

erge

ncy

asse

ss-

men

t for

mat

(REN

A)

and

the

IASC

con

tin-

genc

y pl

anni

ng p

roce

ss;

plan

ned

part

icip

atio

n of

th

e pr

e-qu

alifi

ed N

GO

s as

sess

men

t; to

ol fo

r rap

-id

360

deg

ree

revi

ew o

f th

e re

cove

ry la

ndsc

ape;

fa

ctor

ed d

evel

opm

ent

stan

dard

s; s

impl

e an

d co

ncis

e de

sign

; col

lect

s di

sagg

rega

ted

data

at

the

loca

l adm

inis

trat

ive

leve

l, th

at is

am

enab

le

for a

ggre

gatio

n at

the

natio

nal l

evel

; thr

ee

step

sys

tem

atic

pro

cess

of

cap

turin

g re

cove

ry

need

s an

d as

sist

ance

.

build

cap

acity

for u

se

of P

DN

A to

ols;

nee

d fo

r se

para

te fo

rmat

s fo

r em

erge

ncy

and

reco

very

as

sess

men

t not

cle

ar to

po

tent

ial a

sses

smen

t te

am m

embe

rs; g

ende

r an

d ag

e se

greg

ated

ca

tego

ries

not b

uilt

in

PDN

A fo

rmat

; ow

ners

hip

by d

onor

s an

d go

vern

-m

ent n

ot c

onfir

med

; not

in

tegr

ated

into

dam

age

and

loss

ass

essm

ent

form

at o

f gov

ernm

ent.

linke

d w

ith th

e RE

NA

m

etho

dolo

gy fo

r em

er-

genc

y as

sess

men

t.

Annex 4: Table of Needs Assessment Methodologies


Back

grou

nd In

form

atio

nCo

nten

t and

Des

ign

Revi

ewM

etho

dol-

ogy

Sour

ceSt

atus

Use

rsSe

ctor

Tim

e lin

eTo

ols

App

licat

ion

Stre

ngth

sCh

alle

nges

Link

s w

ith

othe

r m

etho

ds

Nam

e (y

ear

of d

evel

op-

men

t and

ad

apta

tion)

Exis

ting

or

Emer

ging

Plan

ned

and

pote

ntia

lSi

ngle

-sec

tor

/ Mul

ti-se

ctor

al

Prev

entio

n m

itiga

tion

prep

ared

ness

/re

spon

se

reha

bilit

atio

n re

cove

ry re

-co

nstru

ctio

n

Gui

delin

es, r

apid

as-

sess

men

t too

l, fo

rmat

fo

r dat

a co

llect

ion,

re

port

ing

etc.

Coun

try

and

Dis

aste

r

Dam

age

and

Nee

ds

Ass

essm

ent

(DA

NA

) m

etho

dol-

ogy

in V

iet-

nam

(200

6)

Gov

ernm

ent

of V

ietn

am’s

CCFS

C (C

entr

al

Com

mitt

ee

for F

lood

s an

d St

orm

Co

ntro

l) un

it an

d U

ND

P Vi

tena

m

emer

ging

G

over

n-m

ent l

ed

with

dat

a co

llect

ion

at th

e lo

wer

ad

min

istr

a-tiv

e le

vel

by th

e Re

d Cr

oss

and

gove

rnm

ent

offici

als.

Mul

ti-se

c-to

ral

Mul

ti-ph

ase

(em

erge

ncy,

po

st d

isas

ter

resp

onse

, re

cove

ry

and

reha

-bi

litat

ion)

in

clud

es a

n ex

clus

ive

sect

ion

on

reco

very

ne

eds

as-

sess

men

t

guid

elin

es, r

apid

as

sess

men

t too

l and

fo

rmat

for d

ata

col-

lect

ion

not a

pplie

d pa

rtic

ipat

ive

deve

lop-

men

t pro

cess

, ow

ners

hip

by n

atio

nal a

nd lo

cal a

c-to

rs in

the

gove

rnm

ent

and

the

hum

anita

r-ia

n sy

stem

, str

ateg

y of

co

mpl

emen

ting

a m

eth-

odol

ogy

with

a s

uppo

rt

syst

em fo

r cap

acity

bu

ildin

g (t

rain

ings

) and

ca

ptur

e its

find

ings

th

roug

h a

stan

dard

ized

G

IS s

oftw

are

(for d

ata

stor

age,

acc

ess,

sta

tistic

s an

d re

port

ing)

; des

igne

d to

cap

ture

nee

ds a

nd

capa

citie

s; fo

r pre

, dur

-in

g an

d po

st d

isas

ter

mec

hani

sms;

defi

nitio

ns

of th

e di

ffere

nt ty

pes

of n

eeds

- em

erge

ncy,

po

st d

isas

ter a

nd re

cov-

ery

and

reha

bilit

atio

n;

capi

taliz

es o

n th

e lo

cal

capa

city

of n

atio

nal R

ed

Cros

s an

d go

vern

men

t ad

min

istr

ativ

e offi

cial

s to

con

duct

ass

essm

ent

Defi

nitio

ns o

f the

dif-

fere

nt ty

pes

of n

eeds

–

emer

genc

y, p

ost d

isas

ter

and

reco

very

and

reha

-bi

litat

ion-

nee

d to

be

revi

ewed

for c

onsi

sten

cy

to th

e in

tern

atio

nal

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

thes

e co

ncep

ts

Nee

ds a

sses

smen

t lin

ked

to d

amag

e as

sess

men

t. Re

cove

ry n

eeds

ass

ess-

men

t lin

ked

to e

mer

-ge

ncy

and

reha

bilit

atio

n ne

eds.


Back

grou

nd In

form

atio

nCo

nten

t and

Des

ign

Revi

ewM

etho

dol-

ogy

Sour

ceSt

atus

Use

rsSe

ctor

Tim

e lin

eTo

ols

App

licat

ion

Stre

ngth

sCh

alle

nges

Link

s w

ith

othe

r m

etho

ds

Nam

e (y

ear

of d

evel

op-

men

t and

ad

apta

tion)

Exis

ting

or

Emer

ging

Plan

ned

and

pote

ntia

lSi

ngle

-sec

tor

/ Mul

ti-se

ctor

al

Prev

entio

n m

itiga

tion

prep

ared

ness

/re

spon

se

reha

bilit

atio

n re

cove

ry re

-co

nstru

ctio

n

Gui

delin

es, r

apid

as-

sess

men

t too

l, fo

rmat

fo

r dat

a co

llect

ion,

re

port

ing

etc.

Coun

try

and

Dis

aste

r

Nee

ds a

s-se

ssm

ent

met

hod

for

Post

-ear

th-

quak

e Ea

rly

Reco

very

in

Pak

ista

n (2

005)

UN

DP/

BCP

R20

05G

over

nmen

t an

d U

N s

ys-

tem

with

the

part

icip

atio

n of

NG

Os

and

civi

l soc

iety

ac

tors

Mul

ti-se

c-to

ral

Reco

very

fo

cuss

ed

ToR

with

gui

delin

es

and

repo

rtin

g fo

r-m

at fo

r a ra

pid

and

mul

ti-st

akeh

olde

r re

cove

ry n

eeds

as-

sess

men

t

Paki

stan

, 200

5

Sout

h A

sian

ear

th-

quak

e

brie

f, co

mpr

ehen

sive

, us

er-f

riend

ly g

uide

lines

, qu

estio

ns a

nd fo

rmat

s;

focu

s on

bui

ldin

g th

e ea

rly re

cove

ry fr

ame-

wor

k; fo

cus

on ‘w

hat’

and

‘how

’ of e

arly

reco

v-er

y; c

larifi

ed ti

me

dura

-tio

n fo

r ear

ly re

cove

ry

need

s (6

-8 m

onth

s in

th

e To

R to

12-

18 m

onth

s in

the

repo

rt);

sect

or

focu

sed

appr

oach

; m

ulti-

stak

ehol

der a

s-se

ssm

ent t

eam

with

re

pres

enta

tives

from

go

vern

men

t, U

N, N

GO

s et

c; in

fluen

ced

the

DLA

’s co

vera

ge o

f the

gui

ding

pr

inci

ples

on

reco

very

; ac

know

ledg

ed s

cope

as

rapi

d as

sess

men

t tha

t sh

ould

pav

e th

e w

ay fo

r de

taile

d se

ctor

al a

s-se

ssm

ents

for r

ecov

ery

plan

ning

timin

g to

o ea

rly -

relie

f ne

eds

wer

e pe

ndin

g;

defin

ition

s of

dis

aste

r co

ncep

ts a

nd d

iffer

ence

s no

t inc

lude

d; a

sses

s-m

ent f

atig

ue o

f inf

or-

man

ts; l

esso

ns o

n us

e no

t doc

umen

ted

Link

ed w

ith th

e D

amag

e an

d Lo

ss A

sses

smen

t ca

rrie

d ou

t by

the

IFIs

us

ing

the

ECLA

C m

eth-

odol

ogy.

Post

-di

sast

er

Reco

very

G

uide

lines

UN

DP/

BCP

R20

07U

N a

genc

ies

and

gov-

ernm

ents

; na

tiona

l and

re

gion

al

reco

very

sp

ecia

lists

Mul

tisec

-to

ral

Reco

very

fo

cuss

ed

Gui

delin

esBa

sed

on e

xper

i-en

ces

of th

e la

st

five

year

s, e

spec

ially

G

uyan

a an

d Pa

ki-

stan

200

5; te

sted

in

Boliv

ia, C

olom

bia

and

Venz

uela

The

guid

elin

es p

rovi

de

the

conc

eptu

al b

asis

fo

r a b

road

and

com

-m

on re

cove

ry a

ppro

ach

amon

g th

e in

volv

ed

stak

ehol

ders

. The

doc

u-m

ent i

s ba

sed

on le

sson

s le

arnt

of d

iffer

ent c

on-

cret

e di

sast

er s

ituat

ions

an

d im

plem

enta

tion-

orie

nted

As

the

guid

elin

es n

eith

er

impl

ies

spec

ific

tool

s no

r re

fers

to e

xist

ing

ones

, it

will

be

esse

ntia

l to

esta

blis

h th

e lin

k du

r-in

g tr

aini

ng in

ord

er to

fa

cilit

ate

the

impl

emen

-ta

tion

of th

e pr

omot

ed

reco

very

app

roac

h;

broa

d di

ssem

inat

ion

as

wel

l as

poss

ibly

a fu

rthe

r di

scus

sion

pro

cess

will

be

nec

essa

ry to

ach

ieve

th

e bu

y-in

of t

he a

p-pr

oach

by

the

addr

esse

d st

akeh

olde

rs

The

FAO

/ILO

Liv

elih

ood

Ass

essm

ent d

raft

s ha

ve

been

an

impo

rtan

t inp

ut

for t

he e

stab

lishm

ent o

f th

e gu

idel

ines


Back

grou

nd In

form

atio

nCo

nten

t and

Des

ign

Revi

ewM

etho

dol-

ogy

Sour

ceSt

atus

Use

rsSe

ctor

Tim

e lin

eTo

ols

App

licat

ion

Stre

ngth

sCh

alle

nges

Link

s w

ith

othe

r m

etho

ds

Nam

e (y

ear

of d

evel

op-

men

t and

ad

apta

tion)

Exis

ting

or

Emer

ging

Plan

ned

and

pote

ntia

lSi

ngle

-sec

tor

/ Mul

ti-se

ctor

al

Prev

entio

n m

itiga

tion

prep

ared

ness

/re

spon

se

reha

bilit

atio

n re

cove

ry re

-co

nstru

ctio

n

Gui

delin

es, r

apid

as-

sess

men

t too

l, fo

rmat

fo

r dat

a co

llect

ion,

re

port

ing

etc.

Coun

try

and

Dis

aste

r

Inte

grat

ed

Live

lihoo

d A

sses

smen

t G

uide

lines

FAO

/ILO

draf

t ver

sion

Fe

brua

ry

2007

UN

age

ncie

s,

gove

rn-

men

ts a

nd

NG

O

Mul

tisec

-to

ral

Prep

ared

-ne

ss, e

mer

-ge

ncy

re-

spon

se a

nd

reco

very

Gui

delin

es w

ith fo

ur

tool

s an

d fo

rmat

s fo

r dat

a co

llect

ion.

Th

e fo

ur to

ols

are

to

be im

plem

ente

d in

di

ffere

nt p

re- a

nd

post

-dis

aste

r pha

s-es

: A b

asel

ine

(pre

-di

sast

er),

a qu

ick

livel

ihoo

d im

pact

as-

sess

men

t (fir

st d

ays

afte

r eve

nt),

a ra

pid

livel

ihoo

d as

sess

-m

ent (

4 to

6 w

eeks

) an

d a

livel

ihoo

d re

spon

se/r

ecov

ery

asse

ssm

ent

Base

d on

long

-ter

m

expe

rienc

es w

ith

the

livel

ihoo

d ap

-pr

oach

and

par

tial

appl

icat

ion

of th

e to

ols;

not

yet

ap-

plie

d as

a w

hole

Com

preh

ensi

vene

ss in

te

rms

of c

over

ed s

ecto

rs

(mul

tisec

tora

l) as

wel

l as

cons

ider

ed n

eeds

in th

e po

st-d

isas

ter t

ime

line

cons

ider

ing

long

-ter

m

issu

es fr

om th

e ou

tset

. O

ther

adv

anta

ges

are

its m

odul

ar s

yste

m a

nd

adap

tabi

lity

to d

iffer

ent

scen

ario

s an

d po

ssib

le

cons

trai

nts,

the

cons

id-

erat

ion

of b

oth

qual

ita-

tive

and

quan

titat

ive

info

rmat

ion,

his

art

icul

a-tio

n of

loca

lly c

ompi

led

data

and

pro

cess

es w

ith

the

natio

nal l

evel

, and

th

e or

ient

atio

n of

the

tool

s to

war

ds c

oncr

ete

and

part

ially

kno

wn

out-

put f

orm

ats

(e.g

. Fla

sh

App

eal)

trai

ned

expe

rt g

roup

s ha

ve to

be

esta

blis

hed

that

will

be

able

to

guid

e an

d im

plem

ent

the

asse

ssm

ent p

roce

ss;

part

ners

(UN

sys

tem

, go

vern

men

ts a

nd o

th-

ers)

hav

e to

be

trai

ned

or

sens

itise

d fo

r coo

pera

-tio

n an

d bu

y-in

of t

he

outc

omes

in o

rder

to

assu

re c

ompl

emen

tary

to

mor

e sp

ecifi

c an

d de

taile

d se

ctor

al a

sses

s-m

ents

; qui

ck re

leas

e fi-

nanc

ial m

echa

nism

s ar

e ne

eded

; fina

lisat

ion

of

the

guid

elin

es in

clud

ing

the

clar

ifica

tion

of th

e so

met

imes

inco

here

nt

use

of th

e te

rmin

olog

y;

final

ly, v

alid

atio

n ha

s to

be

con

tinue

d.

Reco

very

as

sess

men

t m

echa

-ni

sms

and

met

hods

of

IFRC

(2

005,

2007

)

IFRC

Emer

ging

Re

d Cr

oss

Mov

emen

t M

ulti-

sec-

tora

l Re

cove

ry

guid

ance

not

es fo

r re

cove

ry a

s a

part

of

emer

genc

y as

sess

-m

ent g

uide

lines

RAT

team

s fie

lded

in

Sri L

anka

and

Indo

-ne

sia

and

Indo

nesi

a (Y

ogya

kart

a ea

rth-

quak

e

need

s ba

sed

on p

hysi

-ca

l and

soc

io-e

cono

mic

vu

lner

abili

ty a

naly

sis

and

disa

ster

dam

age;

co

mm

unity

focu

sed

asse

ssm

ent w

ith s

ever

al

cons

ulta

tion;

repr

esen

-ta

tive

asse

ssm

ent t

eam

w

ith lo

cal a

ctor

s; u

se

volu

ntee

rs fr

om lo

cal

univ

ersi

ties

and;

repr

e-se

nt re

cove

ry v

oice

s in

em

erge

ncy

appe

al a

nd

reco

nstr

uctio

n fo

cuse

d D

LA; p

lann

ed tr

aini

ngs

to b

uild

loca

l cap

acity

in

asse

ssm

ent

inw

ard

look

ing

with

fo

cus

on R

C m

ovem

ent;

sepa

rate

ass

essm

ent

lead

s to

ass

essm

ent

fatig

ue; a

sses

smen

ts

rais

e ex

pect

atio

ns a

nd

reso

urce

s in

adeq

uate

to

cove

r rec

over

y ne

eds;

in

abili

ty to

mai

nstr

eam

re

cove

ry a

spec

ts in

em

erge

ncy

asse

ssm

ents

re

mai

ned.

Reco

very

gui

danc

e no

tes

a p

art o

f em

er-

genc

y as

sess

men

t gu

idel

ines

of t

he IF

RC


Back

grou

nd In

form

atio

nCo

nten

t and

Des

ign

Revi

ewM

etho

dol-

ogy

Sour

ceSt

atus

Use

rsSe

ctor

Tim

e lin

eTo

ols

App

licat

ion

Stre

ngth

sCh

alle

nges

Link

s w

ith

othe

r m

etho

ds

Nam

e (y

ear

of d

evel

op-

men

t and

ad

apta

tion)

Exis

ting

or

Emer

ging

Plan

ned

and

pote

ntia

lSi

ngle

-sec

tor

/ Mul

ti-se

ctor

al

Prev

entio

n m

itiga

tion

prep

ared

ness

/re

spon

se

reha

bilit

atio

n re

cove

ry re

-co

nstru

ctio

n

Gui

delin

es, r

apid

as-

sess

men

t too

l, fo

rmat

fo

r dat

a co

llect

ion,

re

port

ing

etc.

Coun

try

and

Dis

aste

r

RECO

VER

Y RE

LEVA

NT

ASS

ESSM

ENT

MET

HO

DO

LOG

IES

AN

D T

OO

LSN

eeds

A

naly

sis

Fram

ewor

k gu

idel

ines

an

d fo

rmat

s

OCH

AEm

ergi

ng,

2007

and

20

05 v

er-

sion

s

IASC

Mul

ti-se

c-to

ral

Emer

genc

y N

AF

mod

el, g

uide

-lin

es fo

r sec

tor s

pe-

cific

nee

ds a

naly

sis

and

form

ats

for

repo

rtin

g an

d ad

-di

tiona

l rap

id n

eeds

as

sess

men

t of C

riti-

cal N

eeds

(RA

CN)

and

Inte

grat

ed P

lan

of A

ctio

n (IP

A)

Pilo

ted

in B

urun

di,

Côte

d’Iv

oire

, Dem

o-cr

atic

Rep

ublic

of

Cong

o, o

ccup

ied

Pale

stin

ian

terr

itory

, an

d U

gand

a.

brie

f, cr

isp

and

user

-fr

iend

ly d

ocum

ent w

ith

FAQ

s; s

ecto

ral a

sses

s-m

ent a

naly

sis

guid

e-lin

es, i

ndic

ator

s an

d fo

rmat

s fo

r rep

ortin

g;

caus

al a

naly

sis

of n

eeds

; in

corp

orat

es M

DG

indi

-ca

tors

; inc

lude

s re

cove

ry

rela

ted

ques

tions

; gui

de-

lines

for c

aptu

ring

com

-m

unity

’s vu

lner

abili

ty,

copi

ng s

trat

egie

s an

d ca

paci

ties

cove

rage

of s

ecto

rs a

s op

pose

d to

clu

ster

s;

lack

s ca

paci

ty b

uild

ing

for u

se o

f NA

F at

the

glob

al a

nd n

atio

nal l

ev-

el; p

artic

ipat

ion

of R

ed

Cros

s an

d N

GO

s lo

w

Link

ed to

MD

Gs

and

pro-

pose

s lin

ks to

reco

very

as

sess

men

ts.

Mul

ti-s

ec-

tora

l rap

id

asse

ssm

ent

UN

ICEF

Em

ergi

ng,

2006

dra

ftIA

SCm

ulti-

sec-

tora

l Em

erge

ncy

Rapi

d as

sess

men

t to

ol, g

uide

lines

fo

r ass

essm

ent,

stan

dard

s fo

r as-

sess

men

t, da

ta

colle

ctio

n fo

rmat

s,

repo

rtin

g fo

rmat

s,

chec

klis

ts fo

r bas

e-lin

e da

ta, c

apac

ities

in

vent

ory,

refe

r-en

ces

Und

er d

evel

op-

men

t. N

ot u

sed.

st

rate

gy o

f pro

duci

ng

first

dra

ft b

y U

NIC

EF,

befo

re o

peni

ng it

to

othe

r org

aniz

atio

ns fo

r co

mm

ents

; use

r-fr

iend

ly

with

FA

Q fo

rmat

; cle

ar

pres

enta

tion

of s

cope

, us

e an

d lim

itatio

ns; u

sed

exis

ting

stan

dard

s an

d to

ols

for e

mer

genc

y as

sess

men

ts li

ke th

e Sp

here

, UN

DA

C et

c;

guid

ance

for s

tep

by

step

pla

nnin

g; in

tegr

a-tio

n w

ith N

AF,

Dev

Info

pr

opos

ed; f

ocus

on

prep

ared

ness

for u

se o

f M

RA e

.g.:

base

line

data

at

nat

iona

l and

sub

-na

tiona

l lev

el a

nd c

a-pa

citie

s in

vent

ory

(who

, w

hat w

here

)

does

not

ack

now

ledg

e th

e ne

ed to

link

up

with

as

sess

men

ts th

at g

o be

yond

em

erge

ncy

Des

igne

d fo

r lin

kage

s w

ith th

e N

AF

and

Dev

In

fo (M

DG

s)


Back

grou

nd In

form

atio

nCo

nten

t and

Des

ign

Revi

ewM

etho

dol-

ogy

Sour

ceSt

atus

Use

rsSe

ctor

Tim

e lin

eTo

ols

App

licat

ion

Stre

ngth

sCh

alle

nges

Link

s w

ith

othe

r m

etho

ds

Nam

e (y

ear

of d

evel

op-

men

t and

ad

apta

tion)

Exis

ting

or

Emer

ging

Plan

ned

and

pote

ntia

lSi

ngle

-sec

tor

/ Mul

ti-se

ctor

al

Prev

entio

n m

itiga

tion

prep

ared

ness

/re

spon

se

reha

bilit

atio

n re

cove

ry re

-co

nstru

ctio

n

Gui

delin

es, r

apid

as-

sess

men

t too

l, fo

rmat

fo

r dat

a co

llect

ion,

re

port

ing

etc.

Coun

try

and

Dis

aste

r

Gui

delin

es

for E

mer

-ge

ncy

As-

sess

men

t

IFRC

Oct

ober

20

05 v

ersi

onIF

RC, R

ed

Cros

s So

ci-

ties

Em

erge

ncy

Gui

delin

es to

pla

n,

cond

uct a

nd re

port

as

sess

men

t find

-in

gs, f

orm

ats

for

repo

rtin

g, v

isua

l to

ols

of a

sses

smen

t pr

oces

ses

and

logi

c flo

wch

arts

si

mpl

e de

sign

with

vi

sual

aid

s (fl

ow c

hart

s,

cycl

es, t

able

s et

c.) e

x-pl

aini

ng p

roce

sses

; ste

p by

ste

p gu

idan

ce fo

r as-

sess

men

t and

des

igni

ng

RC re

cove

ry p

rogr

ams;

fo

cus

on c

omm

unity

as-

sess

men

ts w

ith fo

cus

on

risk

redu

ctio

n; fo

rmat

s fo

r rep

ortin

g; re

gula

r re-

visi

on o

f the

gui

delin

es;

desi

gnin

g re

leva

nt tr

ain-

ing

tool

s to

bui

ld lo

cal

capa

city

; spi

ral b

ound

pa

lm s

ize

docu

men

t for

ea

sy u

se in

the

field

focu

s on

‘how

’ (pr

oces

s)

rath

er th

an ‘w

hat’

(con

-te

nt) o

f ass

essm

ents

; lim

ited

scop

e of

the

as-

sess

men

t nee

ds, b

ased

on

the

supp

ly c

apac

ity

of th

e RC

mov

emen

t; gu

idel

ines

and

tool

s no

t fol

low

ed b

y se

c-to

r spe

cific

em

erge

ncy

resp

onse

team

s ch

al-

leng

ing

com

paris

on

and

inte

r-se

ctor

al p

ro-

gram

mes

.

2007

ver

sion

will

incl

ude

reco

very

gui

danc

e no

tes.

Rapi

d A

s-se

ssm

ent

for H

uman

i-ta

rian

As-

sist

ance

RED

LAC

Fina

l ver

sion

20

06RE

DLA

C m

embe

rs

and

othe

r in

stitu

tions

, go

vern

-m

ents

and

N

GO

for

Flas

h A

ppea

l an

d de

cisi

on

mak

ing

in

hum

anita

r-ia

n ai

d co

n-te

xt; d

iffer

-en

t lev

els

Inte

grat

ed

appr

oach

w

ith fo

cus

on h

ealth

, fo

od a

nd

nutr

ition

, w

ater

, sa

nita

tion,

sh

elte

rs,

livel

ihoo

d,

prot

ectio

n,

orga

niza

tion

and

coor

di-

natio

n, a

nd

Educ

atio

n

Emer

genc

y re

spon

se:

any

mom

ent

post

eve

nt,

best

as

soon

as

pos

sibl

e af

ter d

isas

ter

Crite

ria fo

r rap

id

asse

ssm

ents

;

Que

stio

nnai

re

guid

e;

Shor

t che

cklis

t;

Rapi

d as

sess

men

t fo

rm

App

lied

by S

INA

P-RO

C Pa

nam

á af

ter

flood

ing

2006

and

pa

rtia

lly a

pplie

d af

ter B

oliv

ia fl

oods

20

07

It

was

est

ablis

hed

for

resp

onse

nee

ds c

onsi

d-er

ing

only

a fe

w a

spec

ts

need

ed fo

r rec

over

y.

In o

rder

to b

e of

use

fo

r rec

over

y it

is to

be

furt

her s

tren

gthe

ned

in

this

sen

se. T

he m

etho

d ha

s to

be

diss

emin

ated

am

ong

the

pote

ntia

l us

ers

Inte

grat

es O

CHA

form

at

for s

ituat

ion

repo

rts

and

IASC

Gui

delin

es fo

r Fla

sh

App

eals

(ext

ract

)

Com

plem

enta

ry to

spe

-ci

fic m

etho

ds a

nd to

ols

of R

EDLA

C m

embe

rs a

nd

othe

rs;

Com

plem

enta

ry to

na-

tiona

l an

loca

l pro

cess

es


Back

grou

nd In

form

atio

nCo

nten

t and

Des

ign

Revi

ewM

etho

dol-

ogy

Sour

ceSt

atus

Use

rsSe

ctor

Tim

e lin

eTo

ols

App

licat

ion

Stre

ngth

sCh

alle

nges

Link

s w

ith

othe

r m

etho

ds

Nam

e (y

ear

of d

evel

op-

men

t and

ad

apta

tion)

Exis

ting

or

Emer

ging

Plan

ned

and

pote

ntia

lSi

ngle

-sec

tor

/ Mul

ti-se

ctor

al

Prev

entio

n m

itiga

tion

prep

ared

ness

/re

spon

se

reha

bilit

atio

n re

cove

ry re

-co

nstru

ctio

n

Gui

delin

es, r

apid

as-

sess

men

t too

l, fo

rmat

fo

r dat

a co

llect

ion,

re

port

ing

etc.

Coun

try

and

Dis

aste

r

Com

mun

ity

base

d lo

ss

and

need

s as

sess

men

t

TISS

Ex

istin

g, la

st

used

and

am

ende

d in

20

05

Educ

atio

nal

Inst

itutio

ns

in p

artn

er-

ship

with

N

GO

s an

d St

ate

Gov

-er

nmen

ts

Mul

ti-se

c-to

ral

with

a

focu

s on

co

mm

uni-

ties

Emer

genc

y fo

rmat

for r

apid

as

sess

men

t sur

vey,

gu

idan

ce fo

r dat

a an

alys

is a

nd re

port

-in

g, T

oT m

odul

e fo

r as

sess

men

t tea

m

Aft

er th

e fo

llow

ing

disa

ster

s in

Indi

a -

Kash

mir

eart

hqua

ke

(200

5), M

umba

i flo

ods

(200

5), T

su-

nam

i in

Tam

il N

adu

(200

4), G

ujar

at

eart

hqua

ke (2

001)

, O

rissa

cyc

lone

(1

999)

cove

rage

of t

he a

ffect

ed

at th

e ho

useh

old/

fam

ily

leve

l; lo

w c

ost (

finan

cial

an

d tim

e) o

f the

ass

ess-

men

t giv

en th

e in

volv

e-m

ent o

f a la

rge

grou

p of

st

uden

ts; m

etho

d in

-cl

udes

ToT

for r

esea

rch-

ers;

sen

sitiz

ed lo

cal

univ

ersi

ties

to D

RR a

nd

lead

ing

to lo

cal r

espo

nse

mon

itorin

g in

itiat

ives

met

hodo

logy

is n

ot d

oc-

umen

ted

sepa

rate

ly b

ut

only

ava

ilabl

e in

diff

er-

ent a

sses

smen

t rep

orts

; ad

equa

tely

trai

ning

st

uden

ts fo

r ass

ess-

men

ts c

onsi

derin

g th

eir

limite

d ex

perie

nce

and

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

the

com

plex

soc

ial i

mpa

cts

and

need

s; a

s co

nduc

ted

imm

edia

tely

aft

er th

e di

sast

er it

is d

oes

not

alw

ays

cove

r rec

over

y ne

eds;

repo

rts

are

ofte

n de

scrip

tive

rath

er th

an

quan

titat

ive

in th

e id

en-

tifica

tion

of n

eeds

and

ex

istin

g re

sour

ces.

Com

mun

ity

Dam

age

and

Nee

ds

Ass

essm

ent

Tool

(AID

-M

I, 20

05)

AID

MI

Exis

ting

2005

NG

Os,

CBO

s an

d lo

cal

gove

rn-

men

ts

Mul

ti-se

c-to

ral

Emer

genc

y fo

rmat

s fo

r 4 ty

pes

of a

sses

smen

t re

port

s - F

lash

, In

itial

, Int

erim

and

Fi

nal;

form

ats

for

quan

tifyi

ng n

eeds

, id

entif

ying

unm

et

need

s an

d re

quire

d in

terv

entio

ns, i

nven

-to

ry o

f res

ourc

es

and

com

mun

ities

re

spon

se to

hu-

man

itaria

n ag

ency

ac

tion;

che

cklis

t for

w

orki

ng w

ith th

e m

edia

on

asse

ss-

men

ts is

incl

uded

.

2001

Guj

arat

ear

th-

quak

e, 2

003

Mum

-ba

i floo

ds

sim

ple

desi

gn; s

tep

by

step

gui

danc

e fo

r pla

n-ni

ng, c

ondu

ctin

g, d

ocu-

men

ting

diss

emin

atin

g fin

ding

s to

sta

keho

lder

s in

clud

ing

the

gove

rn-

men

t and

the

med

ia;

focu

s on

ass

essm

ent

proc

ess

and

prod

uct;

com

mun

ity fo

cuse

d as

sess

men

t of n

eeds

, de

man

ds a

nd c

apac

ities

; m

ultip

le a

sses

smen

ts

and

repo

rts

to c

aptu

re

chan

ging

nee

ds; u

se-

ful s

et o

f for

mat

s an

d ch

eckl

ists

asse

ssm

ent i

s pr

imar

ily

focu

sed

on e

mer

genc

y ne

eds;

diffi

cult

for u

se

by s

mal

l loc

al o

rgan

iza-

tions

who

hav

e lim

ited

reso

urce

s an

d m

ultip

le

dem

ands

aft

er a

dis

aste

r


Back

grou

nd In

form

atio

nCo

nten

t and

Des

ign

Revi

ewM

etho

dol-

ogy

Sour

ceSt

atus

Use

rsSe

ctor

Tim

e lin

eTo

ols

App

licat

ion

Stre

ngth

sCh

alle

nges

Link

s w

ith

othe

r m

etho

ds

Nam

e (y

ear

of d

evel

op-

men

t and

ad

apta

tion)

Exis

ting

or

Emer

ging

Plan

ned

and

pote

ntia

lSi

ngle

-sec

tor

/ Mul

ti-se

ctor

al

Prev

entio

n m

itiga

tion

prep

ared

ness

/re

spon

se

reha

bilit

atio

n re

cove

ry re

-co

nstru

ctio

n

Gui

delin

es, r

apid

as-

sess

men

t too

l, fo

rmat

fo

r dat

a co

llect

ion,

re

port

ing

etc.

Coun

try

and

Dis

aste

r

AD

PC’s

Dam

age

Ass

essm

ent

and

Nee

ds

Ana

lysi

s m

etho

dol-

ogy

AD

PC20

00G

over

nmen

t M

ulti-

sec-

tora

l Em

erge

ncy

prep

ared

-ne

ss

fram

ewor

k fo

r as-

sess

men

t, fo

rmat

fo

r dat

a co

llect

ion,

fo

rmat

for r

epor

t-in

g, c

heck

list f

or

iden

tifyi

ng c

omm

on

prio

rity

need

s

Pilo

ted

in V

ietn

am,

Phili

ppin

es, B

angl

a-de

sh a

nd T

haila

nd

as a

pre

pare

dnes

s m

easu

re

Brie

f, ba

sed

on th

e w

ork

of v

ario

us c

ount

ries

in

Asi

a, c

an b

e co

ntex

tual

-iz

ed fo

r any

cou

ntry

th

roug

h th

e m

echa

nism

of

con

sulta

tive

DA

NA

w

orks

hops

by

the

AD

PC

eg: D

AN

A in

Vie

tnam

, fo

cuse

d on

bui

ldin

g na

tiona

l cap

acity

in

DA

NA

thro

ugh

trai

ning

s (m

odul

es a

nd e

vent

s) fo

r na

tiona

l offi

cers

.

focu

sed

on e

mer

genc

y ne

eds

only

, pro

ject

ed

as a

one

tim

e ex

erci

se,

not u

pdat

ed a

fter

rece

nt

expe

rienc

es in

Asi

a (c

ontin

ue to

use

200

0 ve

rsio

n)

Eval

uati

on

of d

amag

es

and

need

s an

alys

is -

Eval

uaci

ón

de D

años

y

Aná

lisis

de

Nec

esi-

dade

s (E

DA

N)

USA

ID/

OFD

ATr

aini

ng a

nd

appl

icat

ion

sinc

e 19

95 in

La

tin A

mer

-ic

a, m

ater

ial

is re

gula

rly

upda

ted,

fie

ld h

and-

book

ver

sion

20

01

Nat

iona

l Ci

vil P

rote

c-tio

n,

Hum

anita

r-ia

n ac

tors

lik

e Re

d Cr

oss

and

NG

O

Gen

eral

ap-

proa

ch w

ith

focu

s on

he

alth

, life

-lin

es, h

ouse

s an

d pu

blic

bu

ildin

gs,

prod

uctiv

e in

fras

truc

-tu

re (a

gric

ul-

ture

)

Initi

al a

s-se

ssm

ent

for t

he fi

rst

emer

genc

y re

spon

se

(firs

t 8 a

nd

72 h

ours

); ca

n an

d sh

ould

be

com

ple-

men

ted

by

mor

e sp

e-ci

fic a

sses

s-m

ents

Trai

ning

con

cept

w

ith m

anua

ls a

nd a

re

late

d fie

ld h

and-

book

Trai

ning

sin

ce 1

995,

ad

apte

d an

d ap

-pl

ied

by C

ivil

Prot

ec-

tion

in C

olom

bia,

Ce

ntra

l Am

eric

a,

Dom

inic

an R

epub

-lic

, par

tly M

exic

o

Rapi

d an

d ea

sy a

pplic

a-tio

n; c

an b

e ad

apte

d to

nat

iona

l dem

ands

; th

e m

etho

dolo

gy is

kn

own

and

appr

eci-

ated

, and

sta

ff ha

s be

en

trai

ned

thro

ugho

ut L

atin

A

mer

ica

Qua

lity

and

resu

lts o

f da

ta d

epen

d on

na-

tiona

l con

ditio

ns a

nd

capa

citie

s (p

re-d

isas

ter

info

rmat

ion,

est

ablis

hed

mec

hani

sm) w

hich

nee

d to

be

impr

oved

; OFD

A

limits

its

supp

ort t

o th

e tr

aini

ng it

self

and

does

no

t mon

itorin

g th

e qu

al-

ity o

f ada

ptat

ion

and

appl

icat

ion


Back

grou

nd In

form

atio

nCo

nten

t and

Des

ign

Revi

ewM

etho

dol-

ogy

Sour

ceSt

atus

Use

rsSe

ctor

Tim

e lin

eTo

ols

App

licat

ion

Stre

ngth

sCh

alle

nges

Link

s w

ith

othe

r m

etho

ds

Nam

e (y

ear

of d

evel

op-

men

t and

ad

apta

tion)

Exis

ting

or

Emer

ging

Plan

ned

and

pote

ntia

lSi

ngle

-sec

tor

/ Mul

ti-se

ctor

al

Prev

entio

n m

itiga

tion

prep

ared

ness

/re

spon

se

reha

bilit

atio

n re

cove

ry re

-co

nstru

ctio

n

Gui

delin

es, r

apid

as-

sess

men

t too

l, fo

rmat

fo

r dat

a co

llect

ion,

re

port

ing

etc.

Coun

try

and

Dis

aste

r

Met

hodo

l-og

y fo

r es

tim

atin

g th

e so

cio-

econ

omic

an

d en

vi-

ronm

enta

l im

pact

of

disa

ster

s

ECLA

C 20

03 (r

e-vi

sed)

Gov

ern-

men

t, IF

Is,

UN

sys

tem

Mul

ti-se

c-to

ral

Reco

nstr

uc-

tion

conc

eptu

al a

nd

met

hodo

logi

cal

fram

ewor

k; s

ec-

tora

l met

hods

for

estim

atin

g da

mag

e an

d lo

ss in

soc

ial,

econ

omic

and

env

i-ro

nmen

tal s

ecto

rs

vario

us c

ount

ries

in

Asi

a, L

atin

Am

eric

a an

d A

fric

a

help

s id

entif

y sh

ort,

med

ium

and

long

-ter

m

impa

cts

of n

atur

al d

isas

-te

rs o

n m

acro

econ

omic

, so

cial

and

env

iron-

men

tal p

erfo

rman

ce

of c

ount

ries

and

thei

r po

pula

tions

; buy

-in

and

use

by IF

Is m

ake

it de

sira

ble

for u

se b

y th

e na

tiona

l gov

ernm

ents

; it

is fl

exib

le a

nd a

dapt

able

to

incl

udin

g re

cove

ry

need

s an

d ad

ditio

nal

sect

ors

like

disa

ster

risk

m

anag

emen

t.

prim

arily

a to

ol fo

r da

mag

e an

d lo

ss a

sses

s-m

ent r

athe

r tha

n fo

r as

sess

men

t of n

eeds

; ve

ry d

etai

led

(with

3

vers

ions

) met

hodo

l-og

y an

d co

mpl

icat

ed

for u

se w

ithou

t for

mal

tr

aini

ng; c

ompo

sitio

n of

the

asse

ssm

ent t

eam

is

pol

itica

l rat

her t

han

func

tiona

l, it

lack

s th

e pr

esen

ce o

f loc

al a

ctor

s w

ith lo

cal l

angu

age

skill

s an

d an

und

erst

andi

ng o

f th

e so

cial

cul

ture

; wea

k as

sess

men

t of s

ocia

l im

pact

s, n

eeds

and

ca-

paci

ties

in c

ompa

rison

its

eco

nom

ic c

ount

er-

part

; doe

s no

t cap

ture

de

taile

d da

ta re

quire

d fo

r rec

over

y pl

anni

ng;

dela

yed

repo

rts

prev

ent

info

rmed

reco

very

pla

n-ni

ng

Peop

le’s

Cons

ulta

-ti

ons

on

Post

tsu-

nam

i Rel

ief,

Reco

nstr

uc-

tion

and

Re-

habi

litat

ion

(RRR

) in

Sri

Lank

a

Hum

an

Righ

ts

Com

mis

-si

on (H

RC),

Colo

mbo

U

nive

rsity

an

d U

nite

d N

atio

ns D

e-ve

lopm

ent

Prog

ram

me

(UN

DP)

Sri

Lank

a

2005

Mul

tiple

st

akeh

olde

rs

incl

udin

g th

e go

vern

-m

ent,

do-

nors

, IN

GO

s,

NG

Os

etc.

Mul

ti-se

c-to

ral

Stoc

ktak

ing

pilo

t ass

essm

ent,

ToT

for a

sses

smen

t te

am a

nd re

port

ing

form

at

Aft

er S

ri La

nka

Tsu-

nam

i in

2005

Part

icip

ativ

e de

sign

; m

ult-

stak

ehol

ders

(h

oriz

onta

l and

ver

ti-ca

l) as

sess

men

t tea

m;

com

mun

ity c

onsu

lta-

tion

tool

s; m

ultip

le

obje

ctiv

es-s

tock

taki

ng,

part

icip

atio

n of

com

mu-

nitie

s in

and

pro

visi

on

of in

form

atio

n on

RRR

; ca

pita

lise

on th

e ca

paci

-ty

of l

ocal

uni

vers

ities

for

com

mun

ity a

sses

smen

ts;

prov

isio

n of

trai

ning

s fo

r ass

essm

ent t

eam

s;

segr

egat

ed p

rese

nta-

tion

of th

e co

nsul

tatio

ns

findi

ngs

in d

istr

ict w

ise

repo

rts.

Crea

te re

al b

uy in

of t

he

gove

rnm

ent i

n th

is p

ro-

cess

; tim

e an

d re

sour

ce

inte

nsiv

e ex

erci

se th

at

need

s to

be

nego

tiate

d an

d pl

anne

d m

uch

be-

fore

the

asse

ssm

ent

post disaster recovery needs assessment and methodologies

Documents